User talk:Nandesuka/Archive 7

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Welcome

Please leave me a message below, if you're so inclined. Nandesuka 20:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the grammatical correction Lambda '00' 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Just so you know, I think that RFC nomination on your conduct is totally without merit, and I reckon it will never be certified. If it ever does, and I don't notice, email me so I can say as much. --Haemo 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Nandesuka 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper order of the main wikipedias

Sorry to bother you but i want to know where should i ask for the proper order of the ten main wikipedias in the logo page (www.wikipedia.com), if you can help me please give me word in my talk page Zidane tribal 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Regarding Category:Virtual reality pioneers, it does seem a little OR-ish and POV, unless that's what reliable sources say about them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move at Case Closed

I write to you because I have read your contributions for the RfC for the name of the article Case Closed/Detective Conan (Currently archived at Talk:Case Closed/Name dispute discussions#Comments. A page move request has been made to move the page (and 11 related pages) to Detective Conan; please comment it on Talk:Case Closed#Requested Move.--Samuel Curtis^Shinichian-Hirokian-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed regarding the conduct of Certified.Gangsta.

Can I trouble you to write a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram recounting your interactions with him and your impressions of his conduct as an editor?

Thanks.

LionheartX 09:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you

You deserve a cookie today for getting rid of the trivia section on Gnome. Keep up the good work! Buddhipriya 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your edit/removal on "cult-like status" of starcraft

Hi, regarding your comment: While I agree that Starcraft is clearly popular, the statement in the opening paragraph about the "cult-like following" is pure puffery and is not supported by the source cited. I have removed it since it violated both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Nandesuka 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what qualifies as "cult-like". But starcraft is not simply just one of the most popular real-time strategy games today, but more importantly it has grown into a spectator sport. (well, in South Korea at least). They have 2 major broadcasting TV companies OGN and MBC, each with a professional starcraft gaming individual league, and a team league which is a joint effort by the two TV companies, consisting of 12 professional teams each sponsored by large Korean corporations , with hundreds of pro-gamers. The really good pro-gamers become celebrities (at least in South Korea, and quite recognizable among the niche audiences worldwide) and millionnaires. The live televised starcraft matches reguarly attract around 10 million viewers in South Korea alone. Audience worldwide can also watch the matches through internet streaming, as the pro-gaming starcraft scene does also have a sizable following in China, and a visible albeit much smaller one in North America. The truth is: at the professional gaming level, the popularity and influence of Starcraft is in its own league. It's one of a kind. It's untouchable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.194 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 16 April 2007

So find a third party source that says that. Saying it ourselves is original research. Nandesuka 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Hi Nandesuka. If you get a chance, I'd be interested in your thoughts, at Talk:Pregnancy#Fetus. Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nandesuka 11:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess we'll stick with a blurry ultrasound and drawings that make it look like a tadpole. However, I will attempt to correct the text.Ferrylodge 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon

I've had some problems with your recent edit, so I'd like you to explain your reasoning in the talk page at Talk:Dragon#External_links. If you don't give your reasoning, I'll reverse that edit after awhile. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My limits

"Whispertome, "Not censored" is nothing at all like "not edited." Questions of taste and propriety are absolutely within our standards. That is, in fact, in large part what editing is. Responsible editing, in fact, is more about deciding what to exclude than about deciding what to include. Nandesuka 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)"

Nandesuka, of course I have limits.

• E.G. I cannot post anything not verifiable, one.
• Two, I cannot be redundant - E.G. Writing "Blood gushed out" after each mention of a gunshot is really redundant. So is "So and so's brains dripped out" - That's redundant too. Simply avoid peacock terms, and what is presented by the media is okay. I mean, come on, we are talking about a massacre. The killer was noted for his brutality. WhisperToMe 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual agenda

I am distressed at seeing you threaten to block me over this issue. Generally, people are not blocked over editing disputes (except for 3RR). I hardly think that just 4 reverts and 1 warning is enough to justify it. Besides, if I were to revert again at this time, it would just be undone again - which is the proper way to deal with these things, not blocking one side. That is the very reason why blocks for other than simple vandalism are so deprecated - because it often amounts to taking sides. The way, the truth, and the light 13:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to respond to any of the points I made above. I am trying to continue the discussion on the talk page, yes; that is where it belongs. Decisions on content disputes should be made be the preople involved with a particular page, not hit-and-run admins. Your message on my talk page shows that you are failing to assume good faith. As I explained above I do not, and did not even before your warning, intend to continue reverting for the sake of reverting. But your inappropriate threat leaves a cloud hanging over me in regard to that article. While it's true the 3RR policy states that the rule is not an entitlement to revert 3 times every day, there is no evidence that I have treated it as such. I reverted 4 different editors, none of whom made a comment on the talk page; one of them was an anon using an incorrect edit summary. Further there had been 3 other editors who seemed to accept that the information could remain in the article, telling me that I was not alone. The way, the truth, and the light 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted on ANI about this warning. Please take any further responses there. The way, the truth, and the light 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I don't really have any further response. Regards, Nandesuka 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The way, the truth, and the light

Hi! I'm having a difficult time trying to understand some of the recent actions of User:The way, the truth, and the light. I see you have interacted with that user recently. Can you provide me with any insights? In both cases which concern me (Satellite and Orbit) this user might be leaving Wikipedia less usable (i.e. with fewer links pointing to where the editors intended them to go). I don't want to assume bad faith, but I don't have any other good theories to explain what's going on. Any insights or advice would be greatly appreciated! (Sdsds - Talk) 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you turn up the detail knob here? I looked at his recent edits but don't understand the problem. What's the issue, exactly? Nandesuka 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in the clearer light of day the situation looks better! I was apparently confusing two different users' actions. As regards "The way, the truth, and the light", my only real gripe was regarding the Orbit redirect, which is a tough situation I admit. But short term, it really needs to point to Orbit (celestial mechanics), not the disambiguation page. "The way, the truth, and the light" reverted my change there, and I confused that action with apparently independent (but eerily similar) actions at Satellite. I apologize (to you both, really) for possibly "crying wolf" mistakenly. (Sdsds - Talk) 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

— Xiong熊talk* 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with trolling

You should feel more free to remove trolling on sight. Definitely don't bother responding to it ... Cyde Weys 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Alright, I'll be sure to let you know. Jakew 10:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you cause tyroubles on my page

I reverted your troublesome edit on my user page, but I made sure to omit the links you hate.

How would you like it if I remove content from your user page? Would you like it? If not, then don't come to my page and trespass on it. You act without any legal authority. I have not violated any rules; No community concensus was reached. No ArbCom decision was rendered one way or the other; No decision from Jimbo or the like was done. You act without authority by causing trouble, but because I "assume good faith" and because I am a peacemaker, I remove the links you hate to death.

Why, oh why, do you hate my webpages? Also, by what authority do you act? (Even an admin must obey the rules.)

I act in peace. You act to creat and cause war and dissention.

Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 17:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: You post to my page, you cause it troubles by removing content without permission. How do you know me -or how do you know of me, to speak with authority?

By this I mean: I've never met you; You've never met me. You don't know me, and you knowing nothing about me except what Ihas been posted. Since no legal action was taken that supported your action, I'd like to know how you know me.--GordonWatts 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that you understand that if you continue to add links to your webpages to Wikipedia you will be immediately blocked for an extended period. Regards, Nandesuka 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. Now, do you not acknowledge that you, too, must abide by the rules? By what authority do you wreak havok and damage my page? No answer on your part means you are simply hoping that you can violate rules because you're an admin. This would not be an acceptable answer. If you hold honour, then you can supply me a reason to justify your actions.

To clarify: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism prohibits the following actions: "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." This is what you did with your edit. No concensus was gained. Did you know this?--GordonWatts 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I was fairly clear and straightforward, and that my removal of your links — which the community has indicated to you clearly, time and again, are unacceptable here — was in no way vandalism. You are free to disagree. You are not, however, free to re-insert those links. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel^(Talk) 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Death race.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Death race.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Death race.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Death race.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Frenzy.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Frenzy.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Targ.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Targ.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy external links

Sweet! Loved your edit clearing out the spam and self-promotional and cutesy sites and leaving the solid ones. It's too bad you don't edit a bunch of the other articles I do, as I get grief when I make those kinds of edits. Oh, hey, but I see from above with "Mermaid of the Baltic Sea" scowling at you that you assisted me on the links problem on Dragon, which I am grateful for. That same Mermaid guy start a big huge fight on Therianthropy after I removed all but one link there, and it has now gone to Wikipedia:External links' talk page, with Mermaid making all sorts of accusations against me. I think I eventually prevailed on all the other articles I got into similar conflicts with him on, though Werewolf fiction took a long, long time. DreamGuy 07:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iLoser redirect deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of iLoser. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerejota 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Talk Page Assessed as FA Class

Ooooh, the project's going to get you. :-) I don't really want to be mean to them, but, in a sense, they've taken it upon themselves to insult strangers and claim immunity, so hell if they can't hear from the other side and take it. Geogre 03:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:B1_In_Search_of_the_Unknown.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:B1_In_Search_of_the_Unknown.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:B3_Palace_of_the_Silver_Princess.jpg

I have tagged Image:B3_Palace_of_the_Silver_Princess.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision harm

You should understand my motives. Wiki readers are denied facts, which would permit them to circumcision their infants without pain, and while minimizing potential for sexual harm.

You know that ~30% of Jewish circumcisions include frenectomy. That's easily preventable ... just angle the shield in line with the glans. It's typically angled perpendicular to the shaft!

Did you know the Mogen Clamp was invented by a Jew interested in safety and minimization of sexual damage?TipPt 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me perfectly frank: you can have no possible motive that justifies the level of incivility that you have stooped to. I really don't care how good you think your reason is. What I care about is that your behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and it must stop now. Nandesuka 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a humanist, I care for you and your feelings as I do for neonates. I will no longer be "uncivil."

PS, one of my Jewish friends cried and then was severely angered when he learned why he was suffering erectile dysfuntion.TipPt 16:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carnet

I am just curious about your speedy keep of the Louis Carnet article. Although I understand the problems that people are having with the nominator, and I myself in my own delete argument mentioned this, I still can't understand why local government elected officials in the United States would be seen as non-notable, but Louis Carnet is. If you look at WP:BIO, Louis Carnet does not meet even one of the criteria.

Even a bad faith nomination could have redeeming qualities. I was wondering if you would re-consider your speedy keep decision? XinJeisan 15:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjeisan, please see your user talk pageStatisticalregression 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should never encourage people to undertake edits on Wikipedia in bad faith. Nandesuka 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are saying that if someone else puts it up for deletion, then that should be considered without prejudice. XinJeisan 07:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill misconduct issues

You had no right to delete this page, I would like you restore it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka had every right in the world to delete that article. Try staying calm and understanding the reasoning behind its deletion Albion moonlight 21:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up on WP:DRV, but if Nandesuka would like to restore it and list it on AFD, then the DRV will be closed. ugen64 16:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned as I see no criteria under WP:Speedy under which this article could have been deleted. It failed the only criteria discussing BLP as it was not a biography or unsourced. Rmhermen 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A vote of confidence

I encourage you to stick to your current position on the Ward Churchill issues deletion. I am assuming that you have the final say in this matter. Am I correct. Albion moonlight 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Administrative actions can be reversed by deletion review. We'll see what happens. Nandesuka 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will go alert some other wikipedians. Albion moonlight 06:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not a great idea. DRV, unlike an insular AfD on which more input from the community is needed in order that consensus might be divined, is visited by many Wikipedians, especially those well acquainted with policy (most prominently, to the [limited] extent it's applicable here, BLP, questions about which are frequently dealt with at DRV) and process, and even if alerting some other wikipedians, ostensibly in order that they might support endorsing deletion (even if not simply cursorily by virtue of your alerting them to the discussion), is not explicity disfavored by WP:CANVASS, it is likely to prove more disruptive than constructive. Just my two cents... Cheers, Joe 18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect some of the editors of that deleted article have a history of agenda driven disruption. One of them has stooped to being a sock puppet in the past. I hope that Nandesuka has initiated a check user to make sure that no one is voting twice in this particular instance. I do not care whether it gets deleted or not. But I do believe that BLP policy needs to be enforced and I will do what I need to do either have it deleted or fixed, That way the agenda driven will either adhere to consensus and stop the edit warring or go elsewhere to be disruptive in the name of there agenda. Albion moonlight 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining in

The Ward Churchill Article is also a Coatrack http://www.wardchurchill.net/ tells his side of the story. We can use your help if you have time. Albion moonlight 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm glad to remove BLP violations where I see them, Wikipedia is not here to tell Ward Churchill's "side" of the story. Nandesuka 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that; but what I was suggesting was that if enough administrators and or people who understand wiki policy were to help edit that article BLP would rule the roost. I think that telling Ward Churchills side may be a way of achieving neutrality. Fred Bauder wrote quite a bit of the article on Angela Davis. It is my idea of well balanced article. I intend to invite him and others like him to come in and join in on the editing as well. Anyway thanks for your participation. I am fairly knew at this and you have been a breath of fresh air for me thus far. Thanks again. Albion moonlight 07:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas?

Hi Nandesuka. I've been looking at the ridiculous external links section at Human rights, and trying to work out what to do. I'd appreciate any ideas you may have. Jakew 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Zimbabwe

Together we can make the world a better place.

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 04:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note

Nandesuka,

I seem to waste too much time playing Elite clones, but otherwise you're correct. :-) Anyway, I'm going to take a proper look at the sources later today, and will comment at Talk: afterwards. On the basis of a brief look at the dispute, however, I think you're correct. Having said that, the phrase "is sometimes described" seems a little WP:WEASEL to me -- would it hurt the article to be more explicit? Jakew 10:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The article was completely unsourced before, and I was trying to nudge it towards being better. We could say "has been described". Nandesuka 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "MobyGames has/have described it as having 'the gameplay ideas of Hack/Nethack'"? I can't see how anyone could argue with that. Jakew 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Nandesuka 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that my initial reply to you (re WP:WEASEL) was poorly worded, and may have come across as rather rude. Sorry! Jakew 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grubman page

Could you please explain why the Lizzie Grubman page is notable? Is committing a felony sufficient for notoriety? The television show she produced only lasted 6 episodes. This seems a bit of a stretch to me, but please explain. Thanks

Hotu

Note I am not marking the obviously 'freeware' as potential copyvio's. You are of course free to reinstate using subst those links that you feel are justified, and are not covered by a link to sy Moby Games or the games 'offical' pages. ShakespeareFan00 13:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's false - Shakespeare removed every single link, including several games that were freeware, public domain, or otherwise legally hosted. >Radiant< 09:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Getaway on Ward Churchill again

This time hanging a WP:COATRACK on the Barry quote, which adds nothing whatsoever to the section it occurs in, and is terrible undue weight. Basically, their technique is to claim "she's an indian and we have a citation", so it must be included. Relevance goes out the window in order to stand on their soapbox. LotLE×talk 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Again

So in Getaway's latest efforts to further shape the articles into editorials, he is removing any quotes by or favorable to Churchill from Ward Churchill misconduct issues. Same-old same-old. LotLE×talk 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's ad homenium attack on Professor LaVelle violates BLP. My removal is NOT vandalism as Lulu characterized it and it is not POV pushing as you, Nandesuka, described it.--Getaway 23:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:BLP means what you think it does. Kind regards, Nandesuka 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custer's Revenge

Why do you keep changing "sexual intercourse" to "rape" in the introduction to Custer's Revenge, but don't give a reason either on the talk page or in the edit summary? I gave my reason why it should read "sexual intercourse" on the talk page, if you think this reason is not valid, fine, but please give counter-arguments.—Graf Bobby 07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that don't belong

You said, [1] "I fully believe that the editor loves their pig, but it still doesn't belong in the kitchen. " Similarly, your edit referring to another editor's work with the words "pig", "feces" and "terrible, terrible" [2] does not belong at Talk:Circumcision. --Coppertwig 16:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is inappropriate for me to describe terrible edits as terrible? We're here to build an encyclopedia. How do you expect users to improve the quality of their contributions if we can't identify the truly awful contributions as such? Nandesuka 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it is or is not OK to describe an edit as "terrible". I'm saying that it is not OK to describe an edit (in such a context) as "terrible, terrible" (repeating the word), or using the words "pig" and "feces" the way you did. The reason is that it violates WP:CIVIL and, in this case, WP:BITE because the editor is likely to feel personally hurt by the labelling. That type of labelling of edits is quite unnecessary. All you need to do is state that you oppose the edits and give your reasons for opposing them. If you're afraid someone might put it back in, you could say that you strongly oppose the inclusion of that edit. --Coppertwig 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May Pang

I'm confused on why you removed sourced information from the May Pang article. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care about the article, but there is so much drama going on with it as it is, that it's driving the main contributor off her rocker. Especially considering it is all of a sudden. Some dialog on the talk page of the article would probably be much appreciated by her. Lara♥Love 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasonable construction of the removed material that indicates that statements like "Perhaps Pang's largest lapse in credibility is her voicing of her support of...(whatever)" are in any way "sourced information." At best they consist of an original research synthesis to support a novel hypothesis, which violates one of Wikipedia's core policies. At worst, the entire removed section is nothing more than a diatribe connecting together various barely related bits of information that the author believes somehow paint Pang in a negative light. Nandesuka 03:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the entire section was sourced. If you feel it was worded incorrectly, then change the wording. Her image is strongly affected by the fact that she endorsed that book, when both of Lennon's ex-wives, Paul McCartney, George Martin, Julian Lennon and others dismissed it as sensationalist. Layla12275 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Absolutely none of the sources cited in that section say anything about "Pang's image". That is original research on the part of whatever Wikipedia editor wrote that section, and is thus impermissible. Please carefully review WP:NOR, paying particular attention to the subsection entitled "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Hope that helps. 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the cited material mentioned her image. I said that the fact that she endorsed the book affects her image, and her place in pop culture history. If any other encyclopedia-worthy person made a controversial remark, wouldn't that be included? Layla12275 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Rosie O'Donnell's statements about Donald Trump and vice versa, are controversial remarks that affect their images, so those remarks are included. Why would May Pang's controversial support of a controversial book be any different? Layla12275 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not anyone's given statement "affects their image" is a determination to be made by reliable sources, not by Wikipedia editors. Whether the subject of the article is Rosie O'Donnell or May Pang, such determinations must come from attributable, reliable sources, not from the aether. Nandesuka 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and Ray Coleman is that reliable source. In his biography of John Lennon, he wrote that while most of the people in Lennon's life denounced the book, support for it came from May Pang. He felt this was significant because she was the only one, and the book makes incredibly sensationalist claims. Therefore, I feel that Coleman's opinion is reliable, as he travelled with the Beatles and was a published author. Layla12275 03:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you attributing the opinion "May Pang's credibility was suspect" to Coleman? If so, a citation to that effect would be useful. If, rather, you are synthesizing that opinion, it's simply not appropriate. Nandesuka 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily that opinion, just that her support of it is significant, which is why the section should be re-written to allow people to draw their own conclusions from her support. Layla12275 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I simply can't see this as anything other than an attempt to push a POV by implication -- given the text that accompanied the section, no other conclusion is reasonable. Putting a tuxedo on a pig isn't going to make him Fred Astaire. Nandesuka 03:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indenting, good idea) Actually, on page 36 he states that her book was "in execrable taste", but he doesn't link it to the Goldman thing. So I propose that her support of the Goldman book be re-instated, but without the comments regarding her credibility. The reader can suppose what he/she likes from the facts. Layla12275 03:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say, "May Pang supported the book"? If the additional commentary is removed, that is a simple fact and pushes no POV. Layla12275 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, because based on the discussion on Talk:May Pang, the statement "May Pang supported the book" seems to misrepresent or gloss over her position. Second of all, because it seems like an utterly trivial fact to include in a biography of a living person. Third of all, because in my opinion this entire line of attack is tainted by the fact that its genesis in the article was, quite obviously, intended to disparage Pang. With that in mind, I believe the standard for inclusion needs to be "Why include this?" rather than "Why not mention it and let the readers arrive at hopefully negative conclusions?" Nandesuka 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that those conclusions should be negative. I said that it was a fact that Ray Coleman felt was significant enough to publish. All that should be included is the information in Coleman's book. If he glossed over her position, that responsibility lies with Coleman, not with us for quoting him. Layla12275 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, I wasn't just going to put "May Pang supported the book." I was going to quote Coleman directly, as I believe was done before, without additional commentary about Miss Pang's credibility. Layla12275 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Layla, put it on Goldman's page (or your discussion page) if you love it so much. And Layla isn't the main contributor.Sixstring1965 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

Could I request your input at Talk:Phimosis#Photos? Thanks, Jakew 12:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've watchlisted pubic hair (I already have glans penis), and will keep an eye on both. Jakew 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bwsweep.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bwsweep.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing images

First, the images are not of me, but of a model so perhaps do not jump to conclusions. This is the same model who illustrates virtually all of the body part articles, from Teeth to Scrotum to Mouth. It is not me. Second, consensus has been reached on these pages to include images you are making the single determination to remove them. If you persist in doing so, I will have an admin intervene. --David Shankbone 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I say they are "your images", I mean just that. They're your images. You took them and uploaded them, right? I don't particularly care whether you are the model or not.

Second of all, consensus can change. I think that your images should absolutely be used where they are appropriate and high quality (the scrotum image in particular is quite good.) On the other hand, where your images are inappropriate and of low quality (e.g., the pubic hair image), they should be removed. Consensus formation at Wikipedia is an ongoing process, and things change. You will need to accept that all of your contributions will be edited mercilessly, and that sometimes the consensus will form to remove them -- as it is forming in these cases. Kind regards, Nandesuka 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I accept all those things, but you should accept that you aren't the last voice on an issue, and the pubic hair photo in particular has consensus. And your edit summaries plainly spoke you thought I was trying to put my dick on here. And you also called my contributions spam, which is not assuming good faith. Continue to revert without discussing these issues on the Talk pages and we can take it to the next level. You're not the final authority on here, and you should show a little respect to other editors, the same respect you would want extended to yourself. That does not include calling their contributions spam. --David Shankbone 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have also violated the 3RR rule on Glans penis and will be duly reported. --David Shankbone 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reading your report. I enjoy fiction. Nandesuka 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fiction, it's just diffs - since 7:00 last night my time you have reverted four times. That's all. I'll provide the diffs - happy reading. The above is your warning. --David Shankbone 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do so enjoy creative math, too. Thanks! Nandesuka 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubic hair

The consensus was reached here. --David Shankbone 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Glans penis

Hello Nandesuka. I noticed that you reverted this article three times in sixteen hours and added edit summaries like "The difference between these two is essentially not visible. Removing for reasons of WP:HEYIWOULDLIKETOHAVEMYPENISONWIKIPEDIA". I think the editor in question has made it clear that it isn't his penis and moreover, using edit summaries in this fashion is quite rude. I can see no reason why you would remove this image as it provides a different view of the circumcised glans penis which can only enhance the article. You warn DavidShankBone (again in an edit summary) to see WP:OWN - well it appears that you are acting as if you own the article, not him. I will reinstate the image and strongly urge you not to continue reverting for invalid reasons and using edit summaries to attack other editors. The Rambling Man 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I didn't revert the 3RR rule, which is within a 24 hour period. Supply the diffs. I have already raised your behavior with Mark. I will not revert myself, and you are still edit warring. It's amazing that every revert was against one of yours. WP:KETTLE. --David Shankbone 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted my notice on your page when I realized I got the math wrong. Your edit summary, however, was still uncivil and inaccurate. Kind regards, Nandesuka 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be bringing up your behavior on the admin noticeboard. Look for it. Cheers! --David Shankbone 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That sounds great. Nandesuka 13:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I don't think this comes down to who is right or wrong over the images, and it looks like it's a draw anyway (one taken off at glans penis, the other staying up at pubic hair). What is an issue is why this devolved and why we allowed it to do so. If you'd like to discuss it, I'm open to the conversation. --David Shankbone 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]