User talk:Kyaa the Catlord/Archive1

Tookie Williams
Hey! Wanted to let you know I enjoyed collaborating with you on the Tookie Williams article. Like you, I'm kind of more interested in the event and it's aftermath than the actual person (morbid, I know). Thanks again! Joe McCullough 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed the attribution problem. Thanks. --Beth Wellington 15:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome from the Genvid forums
I'm sure you would recognize me as the guy with this "wonky" code system. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you have a blast contributing, and I hope I can see others from the Genvid forums come and contribute to Wikipedia. BTW, I'm an administrator here, so if you need any help, I'm available. --  Denelson83  22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Grin. Yeah, I remember you well. :D (I'm still upset you were banned. Then again, I was banned. I got better tho!) :P Kyaa the Catlord 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and unfortunately I can't return to those forums, as I can't send money over the Web without parental permission.  Denelson83  09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kyaa ^_^ (Btw Denelson I'm The_Otaku_Witch). I think are a few more Genvidders & ex-Genvidders who are Wikipedian's too. GracieLizzie 13:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I knew you were a genvidder, just wasn't sure which one. :D Kyaa the Catlord 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the edit (fix) at yllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. GeorgeBills 07:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that funny site. A little humor could go a long way right now, too bad some people just refuse to realize that. AscendedAnathema 07:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you found that lego-Mohammed/postmodernism satire amusing, you might also enjoy this: AscendedAnathema 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ryan, if you want to revert the image in this article, I support that, but please be careful not to revert numerous unrelated improvements to the article as you do so. Please restore the other changes you reverted. Thanks. Babajobu 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried. Sorry. I saw the image moved AGAIN and tried to move it back before editting went on. Gods blood, can't people get it already. Kyaa the Catlord 09:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, and don't wonder why you bother to touch the article, your work is appreciated! Babajobu 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite the Islamic prohibition against depictions of Muhammad, in the past Muslims have created non-satirical depictions. However, many Muslims have publicly indicated that they perceive the Jyllands-Posten cartoons as implying that all Muslims are terrorists, by depicting Muhammad with a bomb and for collaborating with terrorists (by receiving them in heaven).

Is this evidence good enough? ^ Abdelhadi, Magdi, "Cartoon row highlights deep divisions", BBC, 4 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678220.stm Rajab 11:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be fine, it was not there beforehand. Of course, its duplication of the same ground covered in the NEXT paragraph. Let's try to be concise, please? Kyaa the Catlord 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * you're right - we need to be concise.... Pervasive is an excellent word by the way :) Rajab 11:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Yah, the only reason I can tell is because Islam is capitalized. :) gren グレン ? 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
It wasn't vandalism, I tried to archive but forgot to type edit message → Aza  Toth 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Right Wing controversy
Do you have any links for the previous arguments on this? I am interested, however the 10 pages of archives is quite a bit to wade through for someone who is new to this article. Thanks. :) --Scaife 12:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, however he is a member of the press from Denmark. I dunno, in his mind he might have a point insofar as distancing the rest of the press in Denmark from JP. I am in a quandry I see his point, and I believe that Wikipedia should remain NPOV, however in this instance I am not sure which is the most NPOV way to do, however I defer to consensus. --Scaife 12:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

*grin back*
I try to keep to discussing the article, but it gets hard sometimes. DanielDemaret 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Doing what I can re: Connolly. --The Outhouse Mouse 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look HERE. Your contribution(s) would be appreciated. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IPU
Man... now i wanna be both a flying spaghetti monsterist AND a follower of the invisible pink unicorn... i love this stupid cartoon discussion :) WookMuff 08:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC) sorry, Pastafarian ;) WookMuff 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bah, call me Henry the VIII but i am gonna start my OWN IPU religion WookMuff 10:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How do I explain changes?
I know how I would like to rewrite the article (no info deletion, just a bit of shuffling it to become more legible), but when I look at the "history", some edits display an explanation of what is changed. How do you do that?195.163.87.228 11:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an edit summary link below the text window, just add your reasoning in that. Like this is /*How do I explain changes?*/taadaa! Kyaa the Catlord 11:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Hello there. Let's try to avoid to get into a revert war.

I find it however essentially to inform about the fact that the paper (Jyllandsposten) who originally published the cartoons is right wing. First of all introducing any name or concept that we cannot expect people to know I belive some kind of presentation should be there. As a Dane (and a journalist) I find it important that people understand that the newspaper is not broadly representing Danes or the Danish press (even though it can be called mainstream). Noone with knowledge of the Danish press argues that it is anything but right wing.

So please argue why it is irrelevant or incorrect to present the paper as right wing.

Even though we have different views I believe things can be solved by discussions.

Best Bertilvidet 14:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please argue for the substance instead of attacking me for being biased. You dont know me. And was is relevant is your arguments - not against me, but that it should be incorrect or irrelevant to label the paper as right wing. So far 2 people argue for the labelling 2 people against. Bertilvidet 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

arrests of protesters - Danish Embassy
Matey, please don't let the dispute between Tom & I stop you from correcting errors or contributing in any way. Please! That's been going on forever & it's fairly mindless anyway. This is an ongoing story that I don't get too much time to contribute to. The changes made so far have been intelligent & progressive. I really welcome them. Go for it! Veej 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia article
In the future, please discuss the reasoning for removing NPOV tags instead of using the old argument of someone who you don't agree with to be "trolling." 24.7.141.159 09:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * WTF indeed. I didn't touch islamophobia today. Perhaps you are imagining things? Kyaa the Catlord 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could explain this?  If it was not you...who? Islamophobia was the page? Is that the mistake?--Cberlet 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting. I forgot I put weasel there. :P Still, that change WAS warranted and still is warranted. Kyaa the Catlord 08:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is Islamofascism, not Islamophobia. Please, if you're going to dredge up "evidence" against me, at least get the page correct. Kyaa the Catlord 08:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamism article
Just to let you know that several other admins are now watching the Talk:Islamism to enforce some semblance of civilization, and MuslimsofUmreka's position isn't faring too well in the discussion thusfar. They've archived everything else due to WP:NPA violations without really looking at what people were saying, so your opinion about what had happened is no longer there. Hopefully it will be unlocked soon and we can repair the article.Timothy Usher 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa you should not try to change his tags or anything else he wants to do. this is his article not yours isnt that obvious by now.67.188.110.197

Stop ading the tags back on
I withdrew my side of the dispute. Also give a reason on the talk page about why the article is totally disputed when you put the tag up. Please stop being so immature. MuslimsofUmreka 01:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Member off the KKK
Dear KKK member, I know that you hate Muslims and all but please stop messing with the Islamism article. I dont know why someone from colorado is so interested in the article. MuslimsofUmreka 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You make me smile MOU. Kyaa the Catlord 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess your a KKK member who doesnt realize that the whole world is laughing at you. MuslimsofUmreka 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time understanding how ad hominem attacks are ever constructive or useful. --The Outhouse Mouse 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm glad the whole world is concerned about me. Kyaa the Catlord 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think the yare concerned about you. I guess they find you and your humorous people to be clowns. I mean the things that the KKK do are just plain clownish. MuslimsofUmreka 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way look at the talk page and you'll see the moderators said not too revert the article back to the old version. so stop playing games and get a life. I know in colorado there is not much too do. But please try too find something else to do with your time. MuslimsofUmreka 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have editting of wikipedia articles to do. Byebye MOU. Kyaa the Catlord 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not altogether sure that Kyaa would care much for Japanese animation if they were a member of the KKK. (Much less talk to me, seeing as I'm a Filipino with a Japanese wiki handle!) *laughs riotously*  Hang in there, Kyaa! And remember ... "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Yes, even non-Muslims! -- Miwa 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Socks
Thanks, I'll keep an eye on him. Tom Harrison Talk 14:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Kyaa, thanks for your message -- unfortunately most administrators don't have the power to perform a checkuser (which compares the IP's from which certain usernames edit), only a select set of administrators have that power (mostly members of the arbitration committee). If you suspect sockpuppetry you should request a checkuser here.  Make sure you note that you believe this is someone evading his block, or it will probably be denied. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 16:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

24.7.141.159 etc. socks
As you've had some contact with this user, have you any opinion about what I've posted on WP:ANI re Deuterium?Timothy Usher 07:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamism dispute tag
I removed the Islamism dispute tag on the assumption that you would not so object to the rewrite. If my assumption be incorrect, feel free to restore it. Perhaps you will appreciate this page...go to User:Eastern section of the nation and click on Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of MuslimsofUmreka (something is weird about the link syntax here) 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. :D I'm working tonight so I haven't had time to wiki much. Kyaa the Catlord 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologize
I apologize for the comments I left on your talk page last week. MuslimsofUmreka 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Godfrey Daniel cites
This fellow is adding all this "cited material", but when one reads the sources, they don't say what he claims them to; in fact the ones I just removed might be added to the real Al Jazeera citation (as opposed to the imposter site to which he linked) to prove that many Muslims do use this terminology and appreciate this distinction.

Considering Godfrey's recent contributions to Muhammad, and here, it's ironic that his POV in this article concurs with the one MOU and User247 have been pushing, that Islam mandates Islamism.Timothy Usher 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamists and anti-Muslim alarmists just happen to agree on these points.

As for User:User247, you can see him and his User:Hrana98 sock (more accurately, vice-versa) on WP:ANI, where User:User247 has earned his own section; also see the section on User:Deuterium.Timothy Usher 21:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

MOU is back
Despite these quotes...


 * I will stay away from the Islamism page since there is no use to editing it anymore and I dont think it is that serious. So i'll promise i'll stay away from the page and the other editors from that page. I'll just do the positive contributions I had been doing earlier, before I saw the Islamism page. Please unblock me. I have learned my lesson and I will not do that anymore. MuslimsofUmreka 04:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seemed to have lost any interest in editing this page. Very weird. I think its mostly because it brings out the worst in me. So I am officially dropping out from editing this page. MuslimsofUmreka 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...MOU is back and has reverted all my changes.Timothy Usher 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Next one's on me.Timothy Usher 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

See User:ShawnCarter's contributions, only minutes after MOU had apologized to you.Timothy Usher 22:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The funniest part is that he thought he could make a template (like the sockpuppet warning) simply by enclosing something in brackets.Timothy Usher 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On Islamism, I doubt I have much influence with him. Unless someone can convince him of the virtues of consensus and incremental change, I think things will just have to take their course. Tom Harrison Talk 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First off all, I would like to start off with that I am not user: ShawnCarter. All the other suckpoppets listed under my name are mine, except for InDaHoodSoGhetto who is someone else I asked to remove the templates. And also ShawnCarter is not a sockpuupet of mine. I do not know where that assumption came from. I know I said, I would stay away from the page, so I am gonna try to stick to that. MuslimsofUmreka 22:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio at Talk:Extraordinary rendition
Nescio has a track record of advancing suspect arguments to justify using non-reliable sources in violation of WP:RS. See Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Merecat 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC) --- Removed per WP:Refactor Kyaa the Catlord 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

your comments wanted
Please go here Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) right aways and add your input. Merecat 15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***
Please see this Deletion review.

Merecat 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
You missed the tag, which is the call to generate the list. The docs are on meta; there's always documentation somewhere, you just have to find it ;). Happy editing. - mako 09:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Seiyu vs Voice Actor

 * Second warning. Do not edit war over this. Deleting and changing information to reflect YOUR POV is vandalism. Kyaa the Catlord 11:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one conducting vandalism this time. There is currently no status quo and "Voice by" was what was originally used in Simoun (anime) and you where the one that came in and change to to match your POV preference. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. Kyaa the Catlord 12:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ER?
I dont see how how i was in violation of anything, they are deliberately vandalising the document when it has been proven it is not the case... to add to that you can see i was engaged in discussion and repeatedly tried to reason with them, including providing evidence, i had exhausted all options to avoid vandalism to the article, i even warned that it would be regarded as vandalism, i again fail to see what i did wrong -- Nbound 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading back i can see where i went wrong and happily withdraw my explanation -- Nbound 08:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD - Criticisms of Ann Coulter
You should not list pages that are PROD'd (proposed for deletion) on the AfD discussion page. PROD and AfD are two different processes. If you want to nominate a page for AfD, see the instructions at WP:AFD. Dsreyn 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PROD is explained at WP:PROD. For a PROD, you simply tag the article (also note - you should put the tag in the article itself, not on the talk page). If nobody objects to the PROD, the article can then be deleted after five days with no discussion. This generally should be used only for non-controversial pages (I don't know if Criticisms of Ann Coulter would be controversial or not; I just saw it in the list while nominating something else). AfD generates a discussion, and then an admin closes the discussion and makes a decision based on the points raised during the discussion. In my opinion, you should generally use AfD unless it's very clear that the page should go. Hopefully this (and the AFD and PROD pages I pointed you to) will clear things up. Dsreyn 13:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous 3RR citation
You have erroneously claimed that I was in violation of 3RR despite not being able to provide evidence of four reversions in a 24-hour period. Kindly remove your report.RandomCritic 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above, I have gone back and added a fourth revert to the report. The form on the page only asked for three links so that was all I provided at the time. I do not feel my report was erroneous. Kyaa the Catlord 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

mmmmm, Pies IS good.
I find I am in full agreement with your assertion. On an unrelated note, would you care to dance?Number36 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Oh and I don't mean to imply, with me necessarily, you understand, I just mean would you care to dance? Go on, you know you want to.)Number36 01:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then moondance of course, by all means moondance. Bravo I say to the moondancing. Bravo.Number36 01:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what would be really funny now?
If Mike Brown reacted to your e-mail by stating in some interview or article etc, that he was happy with and partly intended the Discordian reference. Oh how I would chortle :) .Number36 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Just wanted to take the opportunity to apologize for any hard words or bad feelings I might have contributed. Best wishes. RandomCritic 02:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pardon" edit commment on Mark Foley scandal
I'm sorry my recent edit comment offended you. I certainly didn't mean for it to be harsh and I am sure your edit was in good faith. I was just trying to give a full justification for my edit within the limited space allowed. The line about pardoning was superfluous and inaccurate, and just wanted to make that clear. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding!--Bibliophylax 17:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And thank you for adding Mel Reynolds, he certainly is a very relevant "see also" example.--Bibliophylax 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I had not noticed that section, I will address it in my next session here. Please keep an eye on the intro, there seem to be attempts to blur the essence of this scandal by suggesting the blame is pointed at everybody's grandmother before the Republican leadership, a little trick which I need not qualify here. Haiduc 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

re: comments at Mark Foley scandal
The discussion at Talk:Mark Foley scandal has been archived so I didn't think it best to continue it there. Anyway, I disagree with your assessment of Perverted Justice. Regardless of the size of the organization, it has been featured on Dateline NBC multiple times - see To Catch a Predator - which probably makes it among the most prominent watchdog groups out there. (The series had a reference at the Emmys, was parodied on SNL, etc.) So I feel the organization is notable enough, certainly more reliable than a blog. Now for the posting. While this particular article is new (at least, it wasn't there yesterday), it, in my opinion, still represents an opinion from an advocacy group. Crystallina 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your aptly worded edits. Haiduc 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fate/stay night on Yuri (animation)
Your edit summary: "returning fate/stay night (honestly, did you bother watching the show Voretus?"
 * Yes, it's one of my favorites, thanks for asking. I've also played the doujin a bit, and am waiting patiently for mirror moon's full translation. :)
 * You seem to think that yuri is implied when Saber's mana has been depleted. In episode 15, since Shirou isn't able to replenish Saber's mana correctly, Rin performs a ceremony to link him and Saber. In the anime, there's a random CGI DRAGON (!!!!) but in the game, this scene is made pretty explicit. Shirou and Saber have sex. Rin initiates the ceremony but is not involved.
 * I just rewatched episodes 10-18 to confirm this. Vore  tus   the   Benevolent  05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! Rin starts the ceremony but only Shirou and Saber engage in the sex act! As I said, she is not involved.

In addition, since the sex scene is not in the anime at all, I would take issue to it being in the list even if Rin WAS involved. The list is supposed to consist of non-hentai anime and manga, is it not? In addition to it being a VISUAL NOVEL (not manga), it is also an ero-game, or hentai.

But yeah, none of that matters because Rin isn't involved in the sex act at all. It's straight sex between Shirou and Saber. Vore  tus   the   Benevolent  06:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Coulter consensus
Thanks for asking for consensus about removing the "smelly people" quote. Nobody has advanced any reasons for keeping it in. Unless somebody comes up with some, I'm planning to remove it soon. What do you think? Lou Sander 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

coulter
while we may disagree on that passage being included, just wanted to say I get a kick out of the comments made towards you on your userpage, and especially the "real" definition of Wikipedia...some people :) --kizzle 08:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley Scandal
Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter
According to policy fair use images (like Image:Coulter-Silver-dress.jpeg) should be replaced by free images (like Image:Ann Coulter.jpg). --Oden 08:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I normally don't like to edit controversial articles unless I've discussed the edits first on the talk page. But lately any discussion is futile due to infantile "debaters." So I'm in the mode of just fixing stuff. Lou Sander 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you have a problem with the way in which I've characterized your remarks, you are welcome to rebut me on the talk page. Do not remove my comments from the talk page again. It is a form of disruptive vandalism. As I'm personally involved in the issue I will not give you a vandalism warning at this time, but if you persist, I will bring the matter to the attention of a neutral third party. Let's talk about this like adults, shall we? Kasreyn 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for visitting my talk page. If you wish to discuss Ann Coulter's article, I'd be happy to do so, but you seem determined to misrepresent and slander me on kizzle's behalf. If you want to continue to do so, that would be fine with me, but any such comments on this talk page will be removed immediately, thank you kindly. Kyaa the Catlord 07:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't stand Ann, but Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is my red-headed stepchild and I don't let it play outside with living people. So if you need help with reverts in order to avoid violating WP:3RR yourself (it looks like you've very close right now), let me know on my talk page. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding fuel to the fire
Your activities at WP:GUNDAM are borderline trollish, please take a breather. Kyaa the Catlord 10:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? Please provide details.  Proto ::  ►  10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
All of this anti-Gundam sentiment on Wikipedia just has me a little overwhelmed. It's nice to have someone see where I'm coming from. :-) Yzak Jule 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe that its coming from people who do not know much about Gundam and are misusing AfD. These articles desperately need clean-up, but AfD isn't meant for that. The articles are doomed though, AfD is a death sentance currently. Kyaa the Catlord 10:42, 9 January 2007

(UTC)


 * After further research I think the article *can* be saved but it needs massive amounts of re-writing plus some very good sources about it's cultural impact in Japan. The AFD will run for 5 days (normally) so I would suggest not wasting any more time on arguing on the AFD but rather concentrate on editing the article so it reaches Wikipedia standards.  --Charlesknight 12:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, a walk around the block, watch some fanservice - just leave it for a bit, wikipedia is really not worth getting too worked up about. If you want to chat further about your concerns and what future causes of action are open to you - drop me a line on your talkpage. --Charlesknight 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sorry, I must have struck a nerve or something. Holy crap did things just fly way the hell off the handle, eh? I'll admit I didn't pull any punches this morning, but dayamn. Kyaa the Catlord 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * it's really really easy to get pulled into a situation where you are responding to editor after editor in a pile-on situation. It's more difficult to pull away for a bit. I think I'm going to join Gundam as a "lay" member and see if we can get a bit more positive action moving forward but this gets too pear-shaped.   --Charlesknight 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been so many posts in so many places in such a short space of time - I'm not sure who said what to whom about what! My head is spinning. I'll have a look at some of your posts later and see if I can make any suggestions. --Charlesknight 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea - I have a creative Zen Media player and while it's a great player - not all of the album artwork carries over from Windows Media player - so a bit of tagging calms me for a bit. Goto bed, sleep on it and let's see where we are tomorrow. --Charlesknight 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob
Mmm... juicy water! :) Don't worry about it mate, I'm guilty of Grade A Exasperation with a side dose of numskullery just as much as you. If it makes you feel better, despite all the fanboyish keeps on the XR article, I think you've dropped enough ammo to at least give a no consensus. And then you can work it up. I'll admit even though I have issues with sourcing that is probably the one mech article that should stand alone. Hope you can corral what will be left of all the info. Hope I'll see you around (in less hostile environments) once these AfD things go over. Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kashimashi
Removing the title altogether was probably the most prudent action. I went through Media Blasters' site and it says nothing about it. The only references I can find are on Anime News Network and on AnimeNfo. While there is probably little reason to doubt them, the fact that the OVA isn't licensed seems a little dubious to me. --Lim e tom 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

About Gundam AfD
Thanks, the RX-78 AfD really got my nerve. I am still trying to calm myself until now. I do not response to AfD earlier because my emotion is really high before. Well, I have much to say in Wikiproject though I need to be more calm. Draconins 07:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So how many can I PROD and how many not? Congrats on all your hard work. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 11:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prod all the ones in your latest list minus the HiZack one. Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs better edits
Honestly, I've been disappointed with this user's contributions to date. She also seems somewhat juvenile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.108.175 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 17 January 2007
 * So have I. This user is so disappointing. Kyaa the Catlord 08:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

n00b
Hey, you've been around since 2005. You're almost a senior editor (and a clear-thinking one, from what I can see). ;-) Nobody can know how to do everything. I've used the village pump as a good source of "how to" information. Many times, the people over there will just do the mysterious task for you, rather than taking bandwidth to explain how it is done. Lou Sander 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF
It's hard to assume good faith when you nominate an article for deletion right after you get into a discussion in which you disagree with the creator of the article your trying to delete. An article that has not even been prodded in the year that its been on the wiki, and one that is outside the catagories you normally work on. I am a pretty sure I have a right not to assume good faith, but I guess thats just the facts talking. It's poor taste to seek deletion of a good article, even if its just a stub, over the removal of one line of text. EnsRedShirt 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter
Do you want me to file a 3RR report, or did you want to do it? I don't mind if you're busy with something else. RJASE1 Talk  04:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, report filed. RJASE1 Talk  04:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Would you mind putting a watch on the above page? I've got a troll with the same agenda as the one on Ann Coulter and I'm already out of reverts. Thanks! RJASE1 Talk  05:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! :)
Yeah it's drudgery but someone's gotta do it. :) Thanks for the kind words. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Category for deletion
You may want to comment on this CfD. - Crockspot 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD
No problem. Hell, that's what I'm here for: see a problem, nominate it for deletion, right :-)? Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um what?
What was the point of this edit? I don't see the connection. JoshuaZ 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, that hardly seems like enough of a justification to make a see also link to a completely unrelated joke about gays. JoshuaZ 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with removing that also. JoshuaZ 08:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive interference with evidence to ArbCom
At :
 * Question: How is this related to allegations of apartheid again? You really need to review what wikipedia is not, since you seem to be under the mistaken belief that it is a battlefield. Kyaa the Catlord 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This arbitration is not about "allegations of apartheid" atall, it's about disruptive editors and disruptive behaviour.
 * Sm8900 has been accused by others of disruptive behaviour on TalkPages - in fact, the arbitration committee are debating the blocking of him for a month for this offence. I chose to draw it to the attention of the arbitrators that Sm8900's canvassing had not stopped, even while his fate was being put to the vote.
 * Later, I realised that a different disruption was also being perpetrated on TalkPages by Sm8900, and I'm bringing this to the notice of the members of the Arbitration Committee as well. (Naturally, they are at liberty to consider my words or ignore them).
 * Disruptive interference with my evidence will be deleted, per the advice right here in this RfA. "if someone comments in your own evidence section, you can and probably should just delete it". If you have anything significant to say, please open your own section. I will delete the unwanted portions of this section in 24 hours or so. Further disruptive behaviour could lead to you being added as a party to this ArbCom and treated as another disruptive editor. PalestineRemembered 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900 canvassing a 3rd time

 * Sm8900 also canvassed User:HG to go Battle of Jenin saying HG .... Palestine remembered posted some quotes which obviously and glaringly dispute the claims of what he himself is saying.. (Sm8900 presumably chose HG to post this to because he could see HG and myself disagreeing about something else on the topic of I-P). This is a third example of the "Call to arms" behaviour he was accused of (by others) in this ArbCom.
 * Please hear me out while I add something else that that may or may not be significant: When HG acted very honourably to the above canvassing and tried to start a mediation of the article refered to, Kyaa the Catlord (utterly perversely, under the circumstances!) accused him of being "far to buddy buddy in tone with PR". I mention this because I think you should know there is a pattern of really tendentious, non-WP-like and non-AGF behaviour going on - and Sm8900 is right in the thick of it. Collegiate behaviour is at a premium - HG's much appreciated civility to me is counted as proof of bias on his part. Needless to say, this attitude is likely to have quite damaging effects on building the encyclopedia. A further statement "This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the chosen few who have decided to take part in a witchhunty kangaroo court." from the same editor is a clue to how serious this problem is becoming. (That statement was later struck through by the author, though I think that's as a potential personal attack, not as an admission of edit-warring). PalestineRemembered 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)