User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 004

Requests for arbitration/Leyasu
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... Leyasu.
Sorry for the undescriptive subject. :) As said above, the Arbitration case against Leyasu has already started. I was wondering, how did you and Danteferno determine that Leyasu was using sock puppets back in November? As it seems you weren't an admin at the time, and WP:RFCU didn't exist (I'm not sure though, so feel free to correct me on that), and I couldn't find any relevant edits on your side asking for a check (yet to go through Danteferno's), so could you provide any links that prove it? I could ask for a check right now, but IPs unfortunately tend to change at times. I will though, if necessary. Thanks. -- parasti (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I took the time to check every IP that edited the gothic metal talk page at the time (if that's the page you're referring to); comments signed with "Porkchop" and later "Metal Mayhem Rulz" were all made from 24.76.91.20, none of them were, however, signed with "Leyasu". There was an ambiguous edit by Leyasu (see the edit summary and the previous edit), that could have led to believe there was sock puppetry involved.


 * Danteferno had also mentioned Flagrancy and Clontarf-the-mad as some of Leyasu's sock puppets; as it seems there were no anonymous edits signed with these names, so other than the edit count of these users there seems to be nothing to prove it. Funny enough, Flagrancy used the uncommon  tag to start the comment, which both Danteferno and Leyasu used at the time , and also signed it using  , which, by the way, is the way Danteferno signed his comments on the talk page. Well, it's not far from Danteferno and Leyasu being the same person, isn't it?


 * Other than that it seems to be nothing more than a misunderstanding.


 * To be honest, I'm not sure why am I part of this case, as it is now renamed to "Leyasu", and I have had no conflicts with the user in question. Other than providing evidence against the evidence of other people, there is nothing I could add to it. And this lack of dislike for Leyasu also seems to be the reason for some of the disagreements between Danteferno and myself, unfortunately.


 * Well, I'll await your evidence, as I could have missed something important. Apologies for a-bit-too-long a reply. -- parasti (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Workshop
Thanks for telling me, ill bear that in mind. Leyasu 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They look okay, I guess. I made a minor change to one of them, since you appear to have copied it from the past decisions of the arbcom but forgot to remove "This principle has no associated penalty". Johnleemk | Talk 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
When i said users when i was talking about your evidence and ignoring sources, i meant the anons involved in the CoB article page, which is still undergoing attacks and some inforcement from an admin could be usefull, if youd like to step in.

If my evidence is long, then thats that, coz i have a lot of evidence, and im not going to be picky and chosey, im going to cite every tiny little thing, so that the arbs can make a decision based on ALL the facts, not just ones that people chose to show as a one sided version of the issue. But thanks for the warning all the same. Leyasu 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Children of Bodom
Im in violation of the 3RR for reverting the Children of Bodom archive, and i expect you to ban me for this. Can you please step in on its talk page as an admin that already knows about the case, and has had dealing with me, and explain to the anons removing sourced information, blanking sections, and rewording whole sections to emmit all views except their own on the page is vandalism. I already told them about the citing sources policy, and the NPOV policy, and they have just said they dont care basically, and are either trolling, POV pushing, or vandalising for a combination of both.

I plea, for assistance in this matter, and for the users involved, including me, be given the appropriate ban for the 3RR violations. Leyasu 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The other user youve blocked as already started vandalising the page again, deleting edits i make, including the addition of the Genre Controversy page. We need amdmin intervention. (Edit) They have also been pooling together to openly vandalise the page . Leyasu 07:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to inform you that the above user has once again violated the Three-revert rule. Also, I should mention that this user is openly defying the policy of Wikipedia in continually reverting to a version which is weeks old and contains inaccuracies and spelling and grammar mistakes. The cited reasons for these reverts are "POV" or "vandalism", when, most of the time, the newer edits are genuine, good-faith attempts to contribute by a number of users. Any help you can provide regarding this matter will be appreciated.

Incidentally, that link doesn't prove anything. I was talking about improving the page, not vandalising it. 220.239.77.250 13:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Parasti and User:Leyasu
I read your ArbCom response to the sockpuppet evidence - true, they do have different writing styles, but one could easily alter one to distinguish it from the other - itz as simple as dIs. There's also been times when User:Leyasu's writing has been much better in terms of spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.

Had User:Parasti been less one-sided on Talk:Gothic metal, ArbCom Report and evidence page, there would be less suspicion, but all he's been doing is talking down User:Leyasu's refusal to provide sources, apologizing for User:Leyasu's use of personal attacks, and pointing fingers (or flinging dirt) at others whenever User:Leyasu's other actions are put into light. In addition, the name was just registered in December 2005. This has a very strong feeling of a sockpuppet impostor.

I hope they do a Check User trace - specifically on the two messages they wrote to "themselves" 5 minutes apart. --Danteferno 08:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Parasti responded to the above post of yours on my talk page, not exactly answering the points mentioned above. He did, however, take some positions that were similar to the ones User:Leyasu made on Talk:Gothic metal and even the talk pages of other articles - if anything, strengthening the sockpuppet theory:


 * "But, both of you are biased towards one another, so there you go..."


 * Biasness has nothing to do with it. One editor has information that can be backed up with sources, the other will not provide such. The editor sans sources criticizes the editor with sources and says any reliablity of their sources is just their "point of view". So both editors are "point of view" and biased. Does that make sense? No, certainly not.


 * Another thing that stood out:


 * "I think you do have a good enough reason to dislike Leyasu"


 * Disdain (if really the case) also has nothing to do with anything.If User:Leyasu came back the next day and provided sources that backed up every article in which he was involved in a dispute, fine, done, excellent, end of case. That did not happen. And neither were retractions of various insults or personal attacks on myself or others. But explaining what he did or didn't do has nothing to do with "dislike".


 * In conclusion: If I was accused or suspected of sockpuppetry, and I knew I was in the clear, I would simply say so, encourage that my IP be compared with the other account, and that's that, done. I wouldn't dig for dirt to try to discredit the accuser, or falsly claim that the accuser calls anyone he "disagrees" with a sockpuppet.After all, User:Parasti and User:Leyasu were the only ones who made that claim. --Danteferno 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation
Hey man, long time no speak. I'm wondering if you might want to offer a vote, or at least a comment, regarding the issue of whether "The Nation" name space should be the article about the U.S. periodical or a disambiguation page. You can contribute your thoughts here: Talk:The Nation. Thank you, take care, and keep in touch. --Howrealisreal 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey again, and thank you for voting. I was unaware of it being frowned upon to ask people to vote in polls, by the way. There have been a couple people that contributed to the poll about The Nation who don't usually edit there. To clarify, I was only asking you because I remembered that you have a real level-headed approach to Wikipedia, and I think of you as an experienced editor whose opinion would be valuable on the topic. I'm sorry if I brought you into some outside wikidrama. Anyway, good luck with finishing up college (I know what that is like, having just graduated in December). Good looking out and I'll probably speak to you again down the road. Take care. --Howrealisreal 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.  Soothing R  21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Messages on User talk:Idont havaname
Hello. I don't know why, but some users have posted messages for you on your old talk page. They are invisible unless you edit the page. Normally when I find extraneous text after redirects, I delete it, but I don't feel I have the right to do this on User pages, so I am bringing it to your attention. You might want to cut-and-paste those messages to this page. --Russ Blau (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dropkick Murphy's Page
I'm not sure why folks insist on reverting the change I've made without discussing it on the talk page. Please discuss this on the article's talk page without blindly reverting. Thanks 65.78.8.9 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Can you please briefly explain to me the process of becoming an Administrator? --69.232.218.27 04:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:ADMIN and WP:ADMIN --WhiteDragon 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Leyasu case closed
A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Old Time Relijun
Thank you for your help with Old Time Relijun. --The0208 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for your swift action in that matter. Jurjen 05:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde   Weys  04:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-
Thank you for posting that. It is true that those two users are disruptive sockpuppets, but tagging their user pages for speedy deletion is typical of the sort of disruptive Wikilawyering that -Ril- does. Robert McClenon 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi, oh nameless one! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status here I come! Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus
Hey, no problem. :) --Khoikhoi 05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Help please
Can you do something about 172.168.89.206. His actions on Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries speak for themselves. Also note that a bunch of the same edits were made recently by similar IPs from a dynamic IP pool sugesting very strongly that it's the same person. Finaly can you revert him on Goce Delchev coz I did 3 times already. Regards --Realek 01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK thanx --Realek 01:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Juppiter and Missing Wikipedians
Thanks for letting me know. The last time I posted someone up at MW was a long time ago, I see they must have updated the rules there. I went and added him to EA's alert page. It's just sad he left because of OrphanBot. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 05:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow.
I have no idea how you have so much information on the Deadlines. Sorry, i should have introduced myself first. Hi, this is Shaun (formerly of the Deadlines) and I think you may know more about the band than I do (or that I remember.) I happened upon this wikipedia post after Googling my last name for some family history stuff, by the way the internet is officially completely ridiculous, and was amazed by what you had posted. It was pretty much right on, I changed one thing and think there are a few more minor vagaries that I might go clear up, but, damn I have no idea how you found all of that. I was positive it was either a member of the band or someone from tooth & nail that did this, although now that I think about it I guess it could be. So now I'm wondering, are you from Portland? Do I know you? Anyway, good work, I'm going to go edit it a little for accuracy and favorable spin (kidding.)

Thanks for doing this, Shaun Sundholm (Coffin) whatever.

P.S. I'm thinking you had to be in the band to know all of this. Who the heck are you?

P.P.S. I hope you get this I couldn't find an email to contact you through.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by F-letter (talk • contribs)

Congratulations! You might be a winner!
You won the 10 GNAA AfD nominations pool, in case you didn't notice. :) Ashibaka tock 04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It really is the 11th nom though. The 10th was done in March but no one was signed up for March.  Since that would be a travesty the 10th was speedy deleted by Rob Church. Kotepho 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 13:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

God
Why was what i added nonsense? it was the truth, the proof is at http://www.wwe.com

Shawn Michaels & God vs Vince and Shane McMahon

God
It is the god in the religious sense that is booked into a match at WWE Backlash, there is no wrestler called God, when Vince McMahon said God, he meant God, check it out if ya dont believe me

Reply to AE
I understand. Whatever has to be done should then be done after the results come in. As for 'baiting', as far as I knew there was no substantial dispute between us until the anon IP's reverted everything yesterday. I hope that once the ban is lifted the dispute will not continue as I have tried to work this out with User:Leyasu, the last thing I want is this to continue. Thanks, --Ryouga 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)