User talk:Nandesuka/Archive 8

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article change

I logged in. I am not a vandal. I was adding information I obtained personally - it is valid. I will try to add it again.P5g4xn (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I see the point. Published things only. Also, she has a different last name, but I don't think I should mention it here to protect her privacy. Another reason to drop this is the fact that some people are claiming that Mia Farrow more or less confirmed something bad in her autobiography (hopefully not ghost-written). I guess I should check with that and see what Mia really said there. If she said something quite different than Prudence, that would really disappoint me.P5g4xn (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHILDBIRTH article change

You asked for a reference, and here is one, but I don't know how to insert it into the article. could you do it, or show me how? marydbw Pain Management by Jennifer N. Ayers-Gould, BA LPN ICCE "By numbing ourselves to the powerful and empowering sensations of birth, we are becoming detached from our physical-spiritual-emotional beings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marydbw2 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AS

Eeek, a nice clean talk page. Are you still following Asperger syndrome? It was FARd for the third time, and has been rewritten top to bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin

Per WikiRage.com, the article Twin received heavy editing today by unregistered users and may benefit from a good review. Per Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process vote count

In your edit here, you say that you "discounted all opinions, whether keep or delete, from editors with fewer than 50 edits". Can you please point me to any policy page regulating which votes are to be counted/discounted. Thx. --Xeeron 12:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Floaterfluss ^(talk) (contribs) 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Ney

I just happened to notice you spoke French and was wondering if you might be able to help out with the Jean-Paul Ney article, the sources for content are all in French, and there is a concern that some of it may violate WP:BLP. Thanks! Dreadstar † 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Pit.png

Thanks for uploading Image:The Pit.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action

I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Targ (Star Trek)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Targ (Star Trek), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Targ (Star Trek). Ejfetters 06:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI at Pubic hair article

Hi Nandesuka

I suspect this issue has long been resolved by now, but please let me know if you need any help. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past headaches...

Remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive53#Extended block for User:Justforasecond? He's at it again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Arbcom

I believe it was you who added two "findings of fact" to the case, mirror images to whether or not #wikipedia-en-admins is an official channel. If I am correct, would you mind signing them please? Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the reminder! Nandesuka (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Targ (Star Trek)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Targ (Star Trek), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Targ (Star Trek). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I've merged it into a new List of Star Trek animals, which satisfies notability. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Death race.jpg

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 the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sammylightfoot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sammylightfoot.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. Rettetast (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Space-spartans-box.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Space-spartans-box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Ilaria_D'Amico.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ilaria_D'Amico.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill Page Edits

You accused me of “misquoting” [1]. However, the text I added ("[The] Keetoowah Band stopped recognizing such "honorary" memberships in 1994.") comes directly from a source cited on the page [2]. What do you mean when you say “misquoting”? Steve8675309 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As written, the text in the reference implies that the cited source says that the Keetowah Band does not recognize Churchill's honorary membership, which is exactly opposite to the very sentence you quote, in which the tribe acknowledges the validity of said membership. Therefore, using such text is misquoting the reference. Nandesuka (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your convoluted and incorrect interpretation of the text does not change the fact that my edit was nothing other than a verbatim quote of the source. There was no 'misquote'. Steve8675309 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you quote a movie review that says "It was amazing how bad this movie was" as "It was amazing...", you are misquoting. That's what you did. Nandesuka (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was in context. The article's subtitle, "Indian tribe states membership is not recognized," also contradicts your strange interpretation of the text. Perhaps you should reread the article [3] and review the definition of "misquote" [4]. Have a nice day! Steve8675309 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for adding sourced material to the article Pregnancy. It helps the project's credibility, rather than let opinion, myth, and iffy personal views stand unsourced. :) For a minute there I thought I was alone, and began do doubt my sanity. Well, really the sanity of others. lol. Thanks again. ←Gee♥Alice 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glans penis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Nandesuka (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Kalindoscopy (talk · contribs)

Hi there. The user hopped on #wikipedia-en-help as well as understood my comments made in response to a {{helpme}} he/she left and seemed fairly genuine about wanting to contribute positively in the future, so since it was the first block I reduced the duration down to 48 hours (since, obviously, the user had vandalized/made personal attacks); but, it also seems like he didn't understand the difference between User: and User talk: pages, hence part of the misunderstanding. In any case, if you have any reason at all to re-increase the block, please feel free to do so. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in case either of you didn't notice: this was one of his previous edits as one of the 81. IPs. You can trace them through the history of the Artistic inspiration article. There's a bit more history here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I trust your judgment. Nandesuka (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please do not edit my discussion posts. β^command 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make it necessary to edit your discussion posts by your being incivil. Nandesuka (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay porn bio

I see you've recently restored sourced material to the Michael Lucas bio. Please consider restoring the content discussed in detail below.

Michael Lucas or somebody claiming to be him posted a statement on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his having been a prostitute, [5], a reference which has stood for over a year. Editor David Shankbone replied there specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes", [6]. Prior to this, Shankbone three times restored the prostitute reference when it had been deleted by the now-banned editor Lucasent, [7], [8], [9]. Shankbone has admitted to having corresponded with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Subsequently, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort", [10].

There are LGBT-related editors who work in concert and coordinate support for LGBT-related articles. In particular, editor Benjiboi who himself previously restored the prostitute reference after editor Lucasent deleted it, [11], now says it "isn't central or notable to his bio", [12]. Why restore it in the first place if it wasn't central or notable? As noted above, Shankbone restored the prostitute reference three times, and Benjiboi once. Another LGBT editor, Jeffpw, also restored the prostitute reference three times after deletion by Lucasent, [13], [14], [15], calling it "sourced material." The prostitute reference had been restored a total of seven times by three editors. The prostitute reference stood until Lucas expressed his dissatisfaction -- then Shankbone reversed and contradicted himself, removed it and substituted the term escort. Escort is not interchangeable with prostitute, it ignores the sexual component of the trade -- the prostitution. The source says Lucas worked in prostitution and founded his production company with money he earned in prostitution -- nowhere does it say escorting. Other reliable sources listed above say Lucas was a prostitute.

This article has been a COI, POV, OR, and BLP nightmare almost since its inception. A review of its history and previous COI [16] and its archive [17] reveals how Lucas has worked through others to edit the article to his liking, i.e., to whitewash and sanitize it. Now Shankbone is editing for Lucas as he wants his bio to read, and other LGBT editors have rallied to support those edits.--72.76.14.153 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Can I ask you about this edit [18]. Is the subject of a biography not a reasonable person to clarify what his birth name was? The source for the info is pretty weak and this must be a matter of public record. What are you suggesting the subject does to resolve the matter - drop his birthname into as many interviews as possible in the hope it will be printed (even though its not the name he wishes to be known by). Or should he be asked to send a copy of his birth certificate to OTRS? I do think its important that we work with article subjects to ensure that information is accurate . We face that risk that researchers may use the Wikipedia article and print the disputed information without checking, leading to more "reasonable sources" for this apparently incorrect name. I just wanted to check - are you pursuing this matter futher? The present state of the article does not to me seem acceptable. WjBscribe 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what happened when Lucas was recently sued. They used Wikipedia as a source for Bregman being his birthname in the court filings, and they had to raise an objection and were told Wikipedia was the source. I have photographed Trevias' Soviet birth certificate, Soviet passport, and US Passport and they are all on the talk page, but the Nandesuka, an admin, considers this "Self-reference"? Why is this such an issue for people? Why do people even care that the man has to go to such lengths, and still be named Bregman? --David Shankbone 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware when I posted the above that we had a cop of the subject's birth certificate. This document seems the best evidence (indeed it is legally conclusive) of someone birth name. I can see no sensible basis for not using that information. To do otherwise is to deliberately include false information against the wishes of the article's subject, which strikes me as an extremely poor editorial judgment. WjBscribe 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "we have a copy of the subject's birth certificate," do you really mean "a Wikipedia editor has uploaded a photo of a document that is purported to be the subject's birth certificate"? I have always considered the latter sort of documentation to be original research of the first order. Can you explain to me why I'm wrong? Nandesuka (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged birth certificate is written in Russian. Who here reads Russian besides Bregman? That Bregman is his last name is well-documented, with better sources saying Bregman was his last name than those not saying that. -72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Nandesuka. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

——Sending you a smile to tell you you're appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk)(contribs) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arbitration Filed in the "Hacker" article

In accordance with clause (4) of the Arbitration Filing Procedure, you are hereby being notified that you have been mentioned as a contributing party to the article and you can make a statement.

You can find the claim, and make your statement here.

I am required to tell you this information I am the filing party for the arbitration claim.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bwsweep.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bwsweep.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may 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. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker

Hey there, I saw your request for help here last night, but didn't get a chance to respond. I'll let the Arb request get out of the way and if you want will stick my big fat oar in as a neutral admin/party. Let me know in the mean time I'll have a look at what's been going on. ^Khukri 09:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the talk page, it might be better to envelope inflammatory or overlong comment rather than editing it out. By this I mean, condensing the block of text into a link which can be opened if one wants to view the contents. I'm not sure of the technical name for this here but I've seen it done when talk gets too wordy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tx

Thanks for the IfD closure. Your closing admin's summary was very well written. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on main page deletion incident

As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment of Strangers

Who the hell were you talking to when you archived that comment on the Hacker talk page because you weren't talking to me. Your arrogance in annoying an anonymous member of the audience that the "Hacker" article is trying to reach is going to come back and haunt you. I don't care how many articles you claim to have written in this system, you gain nobody's respect by accusing strangers who disagree with you that they are "meat puppets". If you think there's foul play then make the checkuser call; don't sit there arrogantly deriding anonymous people's comments and accusing them of being me in order to avoid facing reality.

I suppose you "wrote" all your articles in this manner did you? In which case, its a wonder that you know the meaning of the word "impartial" at all.

Stop harassing anonymous contributors on the talk pages and accept the fact that there are other people in the world who agree with me and are prepared to support me.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop sockpuppeting. I'm not asking for a checkuser because I think it's obvious to even the most casual observer that you used a sockpuppet to try to influence a discussion. We don't need to use checkusers to prove cases of sockpuppeting that are obvious.

I absolutely accept that there are other people in the world who agree with you and are prepared to support you. That doesn't change the fact that this person was you, trying to deceive your fellow editors. If you want to be treated with more respect, I suggest you begin to act in a manner deserving of it. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A++ Add to Cart

[19] Thank you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

boodlesthecat

For what it's worth, I would support this block being lifted early. See my comment on the talk page. David D. (Talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to let the block run its course. I have, however, reprimanded User:Sceptre for his incivil comments, which were quite unacceptable. Nandesuka (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I am completely baffled by this. Could Boodles have been a little more circumspect? Sure. But to block both these users, when only one is clearly posting trollish antisemitic nonsense, is to draw a dangerous equivalence. I wish you would reconsider. IronDuke 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat protection

It is your call to protect the article but it should be protected at the last version before Nik Wright2 added 12,000 bytes of undiscussed, OR material to an article that was stable at less than 60,000 bytes for weeks. It is his unilateral action that prompted the edit warring. I have given an example of Nik Wright2's on the Prem Rawat talk page. Since this is a BLP great care needs to be taken.Momento (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the article as I found it, without regard to its content. The article being frozen in a state that you are unhappy with is one of the risks you assume when you edit war incessantly over it. Looking through it now, I see nothing that rises to the level of a violation of our BLP policy. Nandesuka (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka (talk · contribs), thanks for the full-protection, good move, though the issues raised at the Administrators' Noticeboard thread should still be addressed. Momento (talk · contribs), you may wish to read m:The Wrong Version. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, stop with the innuendo, as this has nothing to do with Momento. Nandesuka, Momento was not involved. You protected the page based on one revert by one user that made an extensive edit which was reverted, followed by another revert. Is that enough to warrant protection for one week, when all other editors are happily engaged in discussions and collaborating? I would kindly ask you to review the protection based on the page history ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I most assuredly did not protect the page based on one, or only a few reverts. There has been a full-blown edit war on that article for the past several weeks. I know this because it's been on my watchlist due to it coming up at AN/I. I would never protect a page over a couple of back-and-forth reverts. I think all the editors on the talk page need to take a deep breath and figure out how to work together to write a good article, instead of merely trying to score points (and I say that without thinking of any particular "side"). Nandesuka (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, in the last few days I can only see a few editors reverting each other quite mildly, and others engaged in useful discussions. Nothing that warrants a one week protection, IMO. Maybe a a couple of days, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, your most recent explanation here on your talk page is valid, cogent, and completely understandable. It is nice to know that the Admin that took action and did the full-protect was not just passing by, but has been watching this issue for some time due to its discussion from the Admin noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring? I've made 7 edits to the article in a week. Including two reverts from a sock puppet.Momento (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

No good-deed goes unturned. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, in case you'd like to comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias and Bloodles

Greetings Nande, how long is the block by the admins on both of these users, or is it a lifetime ban? Thanks. Chaldean (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodles is under a 48 hour block that should be almost expired. I believe Elias is blocked indefinitely. Nandesuka (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was disapointed that not even one admin replied to my suggestion. It made me think as if the admins had already made up there minds before even voting. Chaldean (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we start fresh?

First, thank you for your even-handed comments about me on ANI recently. That impressed me. I agree that I edit-war too much with my work. In my defense, I put a lot of thought, research, equipment, time and money to obtain photos of what are the most rare and difficult subjects to obtain: people (there is only one of each, destined for extinction). For example, there is only one Alice Sebold and fair use is verboten. Daniel Case asked if I could get that (and I let him choose from options that show it is hard to photograph a moving, talking subject under bad light). Photos are an awkward topic. Unlike the addition of a sentence of two, an image is 'worth a thousand words.' On one hand, image arguments have existed here since Christ about how important it is we illustrate our articles. Is it NPOV to use PR shots that do not resemble what a person really looks like; how is it different if we change text to be more flattering to the subject? If a 'reality photo' is available and an author offers an alternative, should we vote on which to use? Are we concerned that the "best looking" photo might looking bear little resemblance to the real person? These are the questions behind some of my actions with people photos.

I do remove my own work, like on Hematoma or Jim Carroll (not at first, but later relented), or on Catwalk when my photo was replaced, I told the editor how much better his was than mine.

Please accept this good-faith attempt to start fresh. I made bad faith assumptions about you and I didn't engage you productively. I apologize that I instigated bad feelings. You have a point that I sometimes act too protective of my work, and I agree there should be no presumption of quality given to me. The vast majority of my work is not controversial (like skywriting or orchard. I always try to take the best picture I can, but it can be a challenge. Barbara Ehrenreich, Francine Prose (really, what *was* her deal? I photographed her looking better at a smaller function, but low quality image), et. al. who stand in contrast to the over 500 people I have shot for WP (including the esoteric, like Floyd Abrams and Manning Marable) when I have had no technical training and didn't even own a camera two years ago. Instead of edit-warring over my own work, I should explain my reasoning and listen to others. If you and I both assume the other edited content in good faith, can we both make an attempt to ask the other about it and explain our concerns instead of starting out with an edit-war? If you remove a photo of mine and I take exception, I will approach you and ask politely about it first. And if you have an issue with what I am adding to an article, perhaps you can approach me politely and express why you have a concern under the assumption I made it in good faith, and not in attempt to "shoehorn" my work. Will you accept my apology and agree to a fresh start?--David Shankbone 10:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect...

I think you've acted hastily and precipitously in accepting the "apology," especially without comprehensive caveat. The contentious edits --essentially OR -- are still in the bio.--72.68.27.168 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Nandesuka (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you follow up and pursue both the removal of the OR and the reinstatement of the reliably sourced material?--72.68.27.168 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Omega (1987 computer game)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Omega (1987 computer game), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega (1987 computer game). Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass/drive-by de-proddings by User:Pixelface you should become more familiar with Wikipedia:Proposed deletion before entering into long discussions about it. It is not unusual for editors to patrol Category:All articles proposed for deletion and remove prods in series. The user you are accusing of wrong doing did nothing wrong, and was acting in a manor that is it encouraged and supported by the community, as it prevents abuse. Also as I pointed out Here the article was not even eligible for the prod tag at the time it was removed. Jeepday (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect anyone who de-prods a group of articles to have a better reason than "I have no reason, but someone else might." As for the "ineligible for prodding" argument: I was the one who de-prodded it in the first place. Claiming that I can't withdraw my objection at a later date seems like a fairly tortured argument. Nandesuka (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Nandesuka (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is only for an article that the editor believes is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion, and once it is removed for any reason {other then vandalism) it has to be taken to AFD. Even if the article had run five days it still could not be deleted because it had a prod remvoed in July of 2007. Even with no history of a prior prod, and without looking at the talk page, the article has some claims to notability "It was one of the first roguelikes to feature a large countryside and elaborate plot development" and several references. Pixelface was very correct to remove the prod for several reason, the user also took the time to check the talk page and while s/he may have misinterpreted the discussion there, the good faith removal prohibits you from replacing it. If you had been able to convince Pixelface to restore the prod that would have been acceptable. Once again I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion as most of this is very clearly written out. Jeepday (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Xiong

• I'm reminding both of you of civility policy here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]