User talk:Nandesuka/Archive 3

RFAR
I'm sorry I didn't check my messages sooner, I figured it was someone angry with what I was doing, thus making my temper explode, and just making things worse. And, I saw that rfc and all the talk on IRC about how both sides think it's getting nowhere despite the issue not being resolved, and I thought I just had to jump in or i'd lose the nerve. Please do what you'd like to alter it if you feel that's right. People can see me as a liability in all of this, but I don't. karmafist 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

another Brazil4Linux sock on Xbox
Looks to me that there's another User:Brazil4Linux sockpuppet on Xbox. User:Microsoft Fanboy blanked a section of the talk page that was making note of the similarities between his edits and B4L. I don't really have a doubt that its him, but as I am an editor on and off on Xbox and had clashes with B4L I wanted to get an outside opinion...and you were the one to block him for the 3RR warring last I believe. --Syrthiss 15:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Snark free zone violation
. I say sir, tutt tutt.

Seriously though, there seems to be some sort of consensual mass hallucination going on here. Does this "enough about the boxen already" group actually not see the point that the "it's not about the boxen" folks are making, or do you think that it is purposeful?

brenneman (t) (c) 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My snark-free offer was rejected, and anyway I was being serious. Nandesuka 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dumb

 * Some idiots left some messages on your user page bottom, so your aware. 172.171.132.116 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This Person "DL" and Nostradamus: Now he is referring to Jews as "Swine" or Pigs
Dear Nandesuka,

Hi. Listen, I am new to Wikipedia, and you posed a question on the Nostradamus page that I tried to answer. There are some people, I think perhaps a guy named "DL" who is writing all kinds of very inaccurate items on the Nostradamus page. As a scholar on Nostradamus, I've been trying to have a discussion with him, but he's up to something. There are numerous typos, factual errors, and lots of negative POV. Now, in the second paragraph on Nostradamus, in the introduction, he basically refers to Jews as "Swine" or Pigs, via a Spanish translation, and postulates that perhaps Nostradamus was part of a generation that, well, came from pigs. I don't want anything to do with what is going on there, but someone, a Wikipedia editor, or administrator should check this out. I wrote to DL, or whoever it is, that I'm backing off, because I think something very weird is going on and it's getting out of hand. I have a revision that I consider much better, and balanced, and that can be added to by others - but the racist tone, sharp point of views, and errors are just getting really wild there. I hope that something can be done to at least include more intelligent and open-minded material, but the Jewish reference to "swine" was the last straw for me. My nephew uses Wikipedia. Something very strange is going on. I'm taking a break, because it looks a little dangerous and I don't want to be part of that. Theo 14:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

About a particular individual
Alkivar posted a request for an IP check on the individual in question. There's already mountains of other evidence to rely on besides it, but direct IPs would be the last link in the chain. Thanks for your response. Daniel Davis 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

I want you to know
Since you seem to have been the most careful person in the Martin RFC matter, I will post this for you to read. After having put much thought into my comments during my entire time at WP, and much effort into remaining calm under all sorts of provocation, I now see that words, logic, and dispassionate analysis don't matter here. I am most distressed with the archiving of the RFC: the incendiary material there was minor, the useful criticism ample; I am most distressed with the flippancy of the Arbcom, who appear to buy wholesale the argument that the RfC was a "lynchmob". In the first place (and I haven't mentioned this yet in this debate) as someone whose ancestors where actually lynched, I'm upset with that comparison, but that is of little matter; What distresses me so is that no one seems to have listened to those of us who tried, respectfully, to push the community toward open dialogue. So be it.

If you can find my outside view in whatever archive its been stuck, please read it if you haven't. I am now convinced that what I feared will happen. It isn't a possibility -- it is an all-but-inevitable truth of the culture here. WP is run by a glorified message board, with temperments befitting the typical teenage messageboard users. The project is doomed in its current form.

I will make no fuss, and no other posts anywhere, in leaving; I won't tell my closest colleagues here. I only tell you, because, if a moment of community reflection occurs in this mess, and someone asks, "Did WP lose anyone over its refusal to allow real dialogue?", you may use my experience as evidence. I ask you to blank this message when you read it -- I hate drama festivals, and I'd like to leave in total silence, except that I believe some record is important. Thanks for being sensible. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lists and categories
Hello, I have made a compromise proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession. Regards Arniep 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC
Let me know when you get tired of me telling you when I'm on IRC. This time I'm on #wikipedia-en. I should be around for about an hour. H e rmione1980 23:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to suspect a Clark Kent/Superman thing here as you two appear to never be in the same place at the same time. brenneman (t) (c)  00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're sockpuppets of each other, but we're really bad at it. :-) Nandesuka 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you still on IRC, mein sockpuppet? :-) Talk about not being in the same place at the same time... H e rmione1980 00:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

help with old username
konbanwa nandesuka

i have an old username which i need to remove. i foolished used the same username i have used in employment and it is rather unique. my identity may be exposed and cause me trouble at work. is there any way to alter my old username or remove my old edits?

thanks -OnceUponATimeInChina 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Arigato. Another user just showed me how to request it.

Changing_username

-OnceUponATimeInChina 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Jakew 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a letter by a Wikipedia editor, but published elsewhere, violates NOR? I would argue against it on grounds that it doesn't use or define the central term (and reinterpretation would be OR), and doesn't support anything in the article, but can't agree with you there. Jakew 13:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Once more I think that you're letting your personal animus against me influence your statements on Wikipedia. Having responded exhaustively to your latest statement on my talk page, I noticed that two or three days ago you made similar statements in which you are clearly once again on the campaign trail, clearly once again only interested in denigration. You refer to "inconsequential, trumped up claims" which you say were "given short shrift". I find no evidence of anything resembling this, but even if I could find claims in the workshop that were not fully supported, your use of language here would have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. You are again lapsing into personal attacks.

You say you're happy with the outcome of this case, though to be honest your repeated proclamations of happiness sound more than a little shrill. Well if you are happy, so am I. Let's not fall out over it. It is not in the interests of Wikipedia to use such language about someone who has made honest contributions to an arbitration case and personally drafted substantial parts of over half of the findings of fact adopted by the arbitrators. Arbitration cases are very important decision-making process, don't cheapen them with attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, I've read this edit of yours a couple of times now, and I have to say, it's simply bewildering to me that you would try to characterize civil disagreement with you as a personal attack. You seem to be unreasonably sensitive to polite criticism.  If this is the case, I do feel bad for you, but it really isn't my problem.  I will, of course, continue to be scrupulously civil to you, as I have been in the past.  I do encourage you to learn to distinguish between civil discourse and "personal attacks," because your comments on my talk page seem to indicate an inability to do so.  Please assume more good faith than you have thus far.  Kind regards, Nandesuka 16:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, please note that your diff is wrong in the paragraph above. After you fix it, you can delete this message. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
 * User arbcom nom

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably time...
Feel free to contribute here as you see fit. Tom e rtalk 13:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know. Tom e rtalk  22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please could you have a look at User talk:Jayjg. I'm wondering whether sockpuppetry or metapuppetry is going on here. If so, should we add it to the RFC? Jakew 13:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2
Calling out to thinking humans: quirky decision alert. An initial AfD decided Ravin should be merged to his company. But the company was also on AfD and got deleted before the merge. Thus instead of being deleted as a redirect to a deleted article, Ravin was kept by the closing admin. It almost got deleted at DRV, and has been recycled, but without any clear consensus. Care to have a look? brenneman (t) (c) 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: EA-welcome (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Blocking the Pinktulip ip
Did you notice that SlimVirgin also blocked that IP for 24 hours? That block will expire (and take yours with it) at 10:00 on February 10 (UTC). It's not a good idea to indef-block IPs anyway. I leave it up to you whether to replace SlimVirgin's block with a longer one. Best, FreplySpang (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kwanzaa
It's wrong to presume that Karenga is me or that I am he. I made some of the anon-ip edits that you blocked him for at Kwanzaa. 70.85.195.229 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-
I blocked him for 48 hours because he's constantly making trouble about the arbcom clerks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:-Ril-#WP:RFAR_and_refactoring. He also edit warred on WP:RFAr recently with a clerk (Ryan Delaney), over some comments on a request for arbitration, with the excuse that he has no community approval to be a clerk. Besides that, he's always making trouble somewhere, though this is the only incident that caused me to block him this time. The block appears to expire in a few hours anyway, ignoring autoblocker crap. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Phroziac blocked me because Phroziac dislikes me due to Phroziac's religious standpoint.
 * Phroziac has already tried to block me indefinitely before - for "being a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams" - this was when that same accusation was put before the arbitration committee, and the one that the arb com, and several commentators including those not generally supportive of me, was clearly in the process of rejecting. The arbcom ultimately rejected the accusation by a fairly large margin.
 * Blocking policy states that you mustn't block users you are already involved with disputes over - clearly, according to the above, Phroziac was involved in a dispute with me, and so clearly Phroziac has violated Blocking policy when Phroziac blocked me the second time for "trolling" - which is not a valid criteria, particularly since trolling is in the eye of the beholder.
 * The WP:RFAr "edit warring" was over Ryan Delaney deleting part of my comments in the RFAr when I was the one bringing the RFAr and had every right to comment fully.

I would like to open an RFC against Phroziac for such flagrant abuse of admin powers. Would you be willing to be a co-signatory? --Victim of signature fascism | 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because I really haven't been following any of the above controversies very closely. If an RFC is started, I'll read all of the issues carefully and offer my opinion, though. Nandesuka 21:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One last thing I forgot to mention; aside from yourself, I also e-mailed User:Radiant! about Phroziac's block. Radiant left this message on his talk page very shortly therafter. Now I can't say for certain, but I suspect that my e-mail to Radiant probably had a large part to do with tipping the scales.

--Victim of signature fascism 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing at...
Hi - if it isn't already there, could you add National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers to your watchlist? One or more POV pushers have repeatedly been trying to delete criticism and insert highly POV content. An example is the ludicrously POV (and first person) text most recently inserted, which I'm unfortunately unable to revert at this time. Thanks. Jakew 10:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Akalabeth Game Name Origin
Hello Nandesuka. I don't know another way to contact you, so here it is. You changed my change on the Akalabeth page on Wikipedia, saying you don't have verification. The change was to show the game was named by Richard for his girlfriend, as "with Beth" i.e. "Akalabeth." Here is the verification: I know both Richard and Elizabeth. They both still live in Austin, but she is now married to another man (and pregnant, by the way).

Richard Stallman and Java
This is about your removal of the Richard Stallman item about him not using Java. Your comment was "This is an encyclopedia." That's hard to argue with.... but not very elucidatory. :-) I could respond with "This is the Trivia section", which would be equally hard to argue with, and we could have loads of fun coming to blows over it. :-) Instead, let's talk it over, shall we? Here is why I think it should stay in. If you disagree, please also state your reasons, and let's come to some kind of compromise.

Basically, it's important because it points out that he's "old school" to a fault.

Java is probably the second most popular computer language now-a-days, especially among modern "hackers", certainly more popular than, say, Lisp. Stallman, however refuses to use it. He's got his reasons - it's arguably not completely open source probably being the main one. However, it is pretty darn close to it, has several completely open source implementations, is often used to produce completely open source products, is probably the most popular teaching language, and is a major burr under Microsoft's saddle, which should all be among Stallman's motivations - yet he still doesn't use it. The question comes up often, so often he has come up with a joke to answer it. That fact really should be stated somewhere.

What's more, please note that he himself (User:Rms) edited that very section, so clearly doesn't mind it being there. Not that that should dominate, but it is not chopped liver either.

I haven't been able to think of a better way than in the two lines there, and until I do, want to leave them there. If you can think of a better way to say the same thing that doesn't annoy you, please do. If you can't, please put it back. Or, let's continue this pleasant chat.

Thanks, GRuban 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work quite the way you think
See for instance Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput

The listed parties are:



The sanctioned parties are:
 * Everybody listed as "Hindus-only" on Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence
 * Everybody listed as "Hindus-only" on Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence
 * Everybody listed as "Hindus-only" on Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence
 * Everybody listed as "Hindus-only" on Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence

You may also note that User:SPUI was handed a ten day ban followed by probation in the pedophile userbox case, although he is listed nowhere in the list of involved parties.

However your behavior was part of a much larger pattern, so the Committee may not consider you individually at all. --Tony Sidaway 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop
I have just done a massive refactoring of Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to
 * remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
 * make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links
Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zero's RfA
Sorry it took a while to get back to you on this; I've been catching up with a lot of loose ends all over the place lately (online and off) and I have a lot more still to tie.

Briefly, I removed the firm support after reviewing the user more thoroughly; I'm rather displeased with a lot of the methods used on RfA, and I've been reigning in how I place a poll vote on that process of late. After actually thinking to myself, "is this user ready to be an administrator?" I realised the true answer, at least in my opinion, is "no", hence the revocation.

I've learned to trust instinct, and kill off the knee-jerk reaction. Rob Church (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Boothy
Exactly, my friend. I was fairly honored, that was praise from Caesar there. Anywho, as much as I disagree with Rob, he's right above, knee jerk reactions are horrible. Best to just smile and nod when they happen.

I hope things are well, talk to you in a bit. I'm aiming for 1,000 edits this wikiday and i'm almost out of time. Karm a  fist  23:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont see you asking me, and i have answered several that have, but i'll make the decision on who i want to answer and how i want to answer it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoro/Zolo
"I care. More to the point, using the "Zoro" transcription carries a connotation of the character as a swordsman. This by itself is reason enough for us to favor it: it gives wikipedia users who read the article an instant way to infer the nature of the character. I fall squarely on the 'Zoro' side of the argument. Nandesuka 03:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)"

Sorry, but One Piece character names get changed all the time in other countries. The arguments that say that this is messing with Oda's original vision kind of fail because of this:
 * In France, Zoro is Zorro Roronoa (Still counts as a name change, doesn't it?), Usopp is Pipo, Sanji is Sandy WhisperToMe 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Germany, Luffy is Ruffy, Zoro is Lorenor Zorro
 * Greece, Luffy is Drake, Zoro is Blackjack, Nami is Bonnie, Usopp is Gus, Sanji is Sunny....

I decided to say this here because you reverted my edits so I feel like it is my duty to inform you of this. WhisperToMe 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"More to the point, you miss the argument that I am making. This is English Wikipedia. "Zoro" has a connotation to English-speaking people that "Zolo" does not. Using the Zolo name removes valuable context that would be useful to our english-speaking readers. That, more than anything else, is why I support (and will continue to support) "Zoro" over the "Zolo" transliteration. Nandesuka 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)"

I am aware that "Zoro" has a connotation that "Zolo" may not have. But keep in mind that it's not my criteria. My criteria is something that is most relavent to a general English-speaking audience. If this is OnePiecePedia or AnimePedia or my own site, I would use Zoro. But this is a general site. This also appeals to people who may casually notice the series. Casual fans would find that the character's name was originally "Zoro" but legal issues caused the characters' name to be changed in North American, British, and Australian versions of One Piece. They are much more likely to see "Zolo" than "Zoro", while a dedicated fan from the days of fansubbing would know "Zoro" better. I actually prefer "Zoro" and hate the fact that the name was changed. But on Wikipedia I considered the audience (any English teacher would say that an author should always consider his or her audience when writing anything) and decided that "Zolo" is better to use on Wikipedia. "Zolo" is what the average person in the Anglosphere is going to encounter when looking at English-language One Piece media. Singapore has an English dub that uses Zoro, but there are few people in Singapore compared to the people in the USA, Canada, and the UK.

I wish that the English manga would start using "Zoro" again (and WP would have continued using "Zoro" if the VIZ manga continued using "Zoro") - But I think it's a pipe dream due to legal issues. WhisperToMe 03:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that you made the changes without consensus, right? You and Cyber are pro-Zoro, I and some other guy are pro-Zolo. And the anons really do not count. They are not registered. WhisperToMe 23:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You've said this "anons do not really count" thing more than once. You are completely wrong. There are plenty of fine editors who choose, for one reason or another, to not register a username. Blowing them off because they haven't registered a name runs absolutely counter to what Wikipedia is about. If you count the anons &mdash; and I do &mdash; then I think it's clear that there's a consensus for Zoro over Zolo.

Regards, Nandesuka 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, anonymous users have been barred from voting in things like Sysop elections and etc. There's a reason for that! You see, Wikipedia bars sock puppets. There is no way to verify or quanify opinion with anyonymous users (after all, AOL uses dynamic IP). The anon users may make good points, but the users themselves don't count in the decision. WhisperToMe 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_3#Larry_Allen_Williamson

"Delete (if an anon has any say in this) or make it look like a real neutral encyclopedia entry and less like a self-advertising homepage. The wikipedian to make the final decision should note that all but one 'keep' votes were unsigned or anonymous. (Quite an irony considering how they (mostly Adul/Mr Marcinkowski himself) rant against the initial proponent's (my) anonymity.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_2

"Focus (spirituality)

Confusing page, original to anonymous editor, tagged for cleanup since July 2005, no changes since that time Ewlyahoocom 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_28

Of course, no one "accused" anyone of bias "just because" he referred two related articles to AfD. Try giving it another read. Dozens of individuals who were distinguished vets of WWI and II, chief engineers on the Manhattan projects, authors and instructors at educational institutions as prestigious as MIT. Sure. Very average. OK. That is your judgment. I respectfully disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.152.119.232 (talk • contribs). * I suspect that the above anon may be PSRuckman (talk • contribs), judging from the edit history. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"

See?

WhisperToMe 00:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. There are specific tasks that we restric anonymous users from undertaking.  "Editing" is not now, and has never been, one of them.  If you think otherwise, you gravely misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia Nandesuka 02:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nandesuka, deciding issues = specific tasks. A guest can edit, but he's at the mercy of registered users. Changing Zolo to Zoro is not just "editing" - It's messing with convention. And, again, there is no way to quantify anything from guest posts. They can bring up nice ideas, but how do you know that it's not one kid making multiple posts from multiple IPs. Or two? Or three?

Also, think of it this way. If you used guest posts to measure public opinion, what if I asked all of my real life friends to vote or give support on the issue? I'm not actually going to do anything like that; I'm just telling you how this idea is flawed. WhisperToMe 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not "guests." They are "editors."  Just as nothing stops anonymous sockpuppets, nothing stops sockpuppets from creating bogus named accounts.  If you believe that anonymous editors are somehow "less of an editor" than others, then your understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is tragically flawed. Nandesuka 06:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Like the guys above? Their understanding of Wikipedia policy is tragically flawed? Anons can be editors, but they CANNOT make decisions on Wikipedia. Even if you see things like "Free Encyclopedia" and "open to everyone" and even if there are the ideals of an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to, please see how things work in practice (a.k.a. de facto). De facto anonymous users are barred from elections and decision-making processes on WP. The same is true for newly-registered users (users with not enough edits). Again, this is primairly to weed out sock puppets. Also, enfranchisement is seen by many users as a privilege to be earned and not a right. WhisperToMe 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't know how many ways I can say this: if you believe that an anonymous editor's opinion is worth less than yours, simply because you took two minutes to register an account name, your understanding of WIkipedia is tragically flawed.  You are wrong.  We are not talking about AfD, or voting for admins, or for Arbcom.  We're talking about editing articles. Your belief that your anonymous Wikipedia account, by itself, makes you more equal than an IP addressed contributor is wrong, mistaken, incorrect, false, and utterly bogus.  I suggest you disabuse yourself of this corrosive notion. Nandesuka 22:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't understand what I'm saying. If an anonymous user makes a valid point, its okay. Of course I consider his opinion to be wrong because I feel like he is "not informed" (e.g. he doesn't know the audience, the purpose).

But you are arguing that anons should be counted when gauging "consensus".

(We're talking about editing articles. )

No, we are talking about making decisions. You changed it to Zoro and backed it up by saying the anonymous users and new users justified your "consensus". Thats making a decision.

"Your belief that your anonymous Wikipedia account, by itself, makes you more equal than an IP addressed contributor is wrong, mistaken, incorrect, false, and utterly bogus. "

Uh, yeah, this belief is backed up by AFD votes and general community attitude. Remember the fiasco over the guy and the libelious article? This caused Jimbo to ban anons from creating new articles. This goes to show that anonymous users and newly-registered users (as their identity is not "proven" either, just to answer your question) have less rights than established registered users.

Food for thought: John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy = led to further restrictions on anon rights

By the way, nobody has a right to edit - Jimbo Wales is the owner of the site and can modify this stuff to his whims.

WhisperToMe 01:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that Jimbo still allows anons to edit. That's because we want anons to edit.
 * "Making decisions" is the essence of editing, your very strange protests notwithstanding. Nandesuka 03:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think my protests are strange, please butt out of this debate and let the natural naming conventions happen. If you don't want to butt out, don't call my protests "strange". Your protests, by the same logic, are strange too. :)

Obviously, you don't get my point. Anons are junior partners in this relationship. They have less rights. Jimbo acknowledges that. Don't use "half-full" excuses like "Note that Jimbo still allows anons to edit". It avoids the point.

Think of it this way, Nandesuka. We let anons edit, but only insofar if they make good contributions. Lots of anon contributions get thrown out or deleted due to spelling mistakes or non-encyclopedic material, or a host of other reasons. Try to find a real convention change that has occurred that involved letting anon edits count in terms of gauging community support, and I will let you off the hook. DO NOT find a scenario where an anon merely suggests something that easily passes. I want you to find a controversial change where anon votes/comments are actually counted as a gauge for community support. WhisperToMe 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, I may revert your edits sometime within this week because you did not establish consensus. WhisperToMe 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already posted an article RFC, and I am more than willing to revert changes made with a justification as lame as "excellent arguments forwarded by IP address contributors should be ignored." Kind regards, Nandesuka 12:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I am ignoring the idea because I considered it and felt like that it won't work in the end. All I do is I tell the anons why I do not support the idea and revort. I ignore the anons themselves insofar that they cannot be used as a gauge to gauge community support. Please understand my arguments next time. WhisperToMe 17:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this: Anons (like me) can participate in a debate because the strength of an argument doesn't depend on who makes it. Anons cannot participate in aspects of the community (such as RFA voting) because they have no track record WRT the community. Make sense? 82.26.165.46 15:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Junior parters! Please return to your containment cells, lest re-education be required to ensure that you only speak when spoken to! -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam??
Can I ask why you delete the links to www.adventureclassicgaming.com from game articles? I don't see why links to Mobygames are not linkspamming and those ones are. Pictureuploader 13:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Teenage Bestsellers 252.jpg
Why did you delete this image used in the article Teenage Bestsellers 252? There was a discussion about it on Images and media for deletion/2006 March 3. Only two persons participated in the discussion about deleting the image. One was the person who wanted the picture deleted and the other was me. I do not see why you think the discussion was ended and why you decided to delete the image. Can you elaborate? Ik.pas.aan 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove parties' work from their arbitration workshop page
Thank you. --James S. 02:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If you remove any party's work from the workshop page again, I will move for your immediate joinder to the case and an injunction against you. Please review the arbitration policy, and keep your comments in the "others" section unless you wish to become a party. --James S. 02:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel so strongly about the table. Perhaps next time you should read the cited principles before making false statements about what is and is not a reputable source according to established Wikipedia policy. If the table didn't clearly show your mistake and that of the plaintiffs you have been supporting, I wonder whether you would consider it so "unreadable." --James S. 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please replace your "refactoring" of my comments
Please do not move my comments out of context. As a party, I have the right to comment in response to others in your "others" section of the workshop page. You have no right to "refactor" my comments out of context. Please replace them. --James S. 02:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please understand two things: 1) There was nothing inappropiate about the move of the material, it was totally transparent and much needed. 2) He's almost certainly not going to put it back, and while quoting sofixit to you may be a bit uncivil, it's still good advice.
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The three sections under each template form apparently refer to who can begin threads in that section, not who can comment on them. I have corrected the mistakes. --James S. 11:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note: I am disregarding your "inuse" tag
Parties should have priority on their own arbitration page. Therefore, you will have to resolve my edit conflicts just as I resolve yours. I reserve the right to use, as a party, the inuse tag in the future. --James S. 14:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium RFArb
Well, um, you ask a clerk to help out. I'll see what I can do, though might be more helpful -- he has the stamina for this sort of thing. Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation of sources
Psst! Quick, while no one is looking, I'm trying to ackpay a ebateday! There's nothing at all interesting being discussed at this spot, nothing at all. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Robert Blair
He's back. Remember he always posted from 207.69.138.* or similar? Take a look here. Jakew 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Date links
Feel free to read the second sentence of the paragraph you quoted. I think you only got to the first. Ambi 05:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Chabad Revert
I will not revert, but I would ask you to take a look at what you did. First of all, you reverted a legitimate updating of a link that nobody disagrees with because of "NPOV." Second, there is a discussion in talk about my revert that it is obvious you did not look at. Please review your work. PhatJew 18:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Resid
I've emailed a reply, I'd prefer to keep this communication on email and if possible IRC. NSL E (T+C) at 00:54 UTC (2006-03-23)

Nonsense.
Don't deface my talk page with spurious warnings. Alienus 12:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, we disagree about whether the warnings are spurious. It's generally considered bad form to remove warnings from your talk page while they are still relevant.  I'll ask another editor to review the matter and restore it. Nandesuka 12:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You can send your entire pro-circumcision cabal to my Talk page, and I'll revert them as quickly as I reverted you. Here's something for you to read:


 * The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space (this includes associated talk pages and subpages), on the principle that although you do not own them, your user space is "yours" (for project-related purposes). Exceptions to this rule-of-thumb can occur in the case of editors identified by administrators, the arbitration committee, or developers, as sockpuppets, where the sockpuppet tag is continually removed from the user page by the user. The 3RR rule may be enforced in this situations.


 * It is usually considered bad form to remove comments (other than personal attacks) from your Talk page except to archive them.

I can and will revert all day long, and 3RR does not apply to me. It does apply to all of you, so the time will come when you either have to give up or get banned for 3RR violation. Give it up.

Your false allegations of uncivility are particularly ironic, given how uncivil you've been. My polite suggestion is that you quit while you're not that far behind. Alienus 13:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, you know it is considered bad form, but you're going to do it anyway because you think noone can stop you. Well, it's nice to see that you're being so responsible about this. (Sorry, Nandesuka, I just happened to notice this remark.) Jakew 13:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Spurious warnings are worse form, so I have to choose the lesser of evils. It's my job to do the right thing, not play wikilawyer, and the right thing is to disregard nonsense. Alienus 02:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nandesuka, at this point, if you write anyone on my Talk page that isn't a full explanation of what problem you had with the content of my text on coagulation issues during circumcision or a full apology, it will simply be reverted. I do not believe that you are acting in good faith at this point. Alienus 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus
Hi Nandesuka, I've responded to you and Ann at User_talk:SlimVirgin. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Citizen! Let us tailor out language in accordance with our Wikipedian life-style!  In the interest of appearing even-handed, I must counsel you that no matter how correct your assessment may be, the use of the word "stupid" could be considered uncivil.  brenneman  {L}  04:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I have re-edited chosen a less loaded word, while keeping the essential point.  Nandesuka 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

0 block vs unblock
This block log and the editors contribs list suggest you have actually lifted the block. I guess Mediawiki isn't bright enough to expire a 0 minutes block immediately and so the shorter block has overridden the longer. (Any particular reason why you didn't just unblock then reblock?) -Splash talk 21:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Smoker" of One Piece
I have good news. Smoker is still "Smoker" in the manga! WhisperToMe 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking error?
Sorry to disturb you but I think there may be a problem with the blocking functionality of Wikipedia as it appears that User:Rgulerdem is able to edit despite his block never having been lifted. Odd... this isn't the first time this has occurred with this user as well (as noted on the block log). Netscott 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Subst'ing templates
Hi, Nandesuka,

I've been looking at recent messages on Alienus's talk page, and I just want to mention that I think it's preferable to use rather than. It expands into the complete text, and once you save the page, it will no longer appear as when you press "edit this section". For one thing, if the actual template is vandalized, the real message remains on the user's talk page. More importantly, I believe it reduces the load on the server. There are some templates that aren't supposed to be subst'ed, I believe, but I use subst'ing for all the to  messages, , and. A disadvantage is that people who see the message and think they'd like to send it to another user can't so easily see what template you used. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting everything inmportant in coffee
Hi. I saw that you just deleted more than half of coffee. This included sevral very important sections. You replaced them with tons of unorganized, useless links to imcomplete messy lists. Also, the most vital section (the one on the drinks), has been compltely eliminated, without even being moved to another article. Why did you destory so much valid and good content? Tobyk777 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jedi6
Just thought you might like to know, our good friend Jedi6 is being considered for the adminship. The page can be found here, if you might want to lend your voice in regards to his qualifications. Cheers! Daniel Davis 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Radiant's talk page
Not that I agree with the sentiments expressed, but why revert Xiong's edits? It is a talk page, afterall, so while I don't like the comments that were removed, I'm mildly disturbed by the idea that negative, but not offensive, comments need to be purged. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The context here is that Xiong has a storied history of making not simply personal attacks, but personal threats. Given that, I interpret his use of the phrase "dance on your grave" much differently than I'd interpret, say, yours.  Nandesuka 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My (Jedi6) RfA
I answered your questions! Jedi6 -(need help?)  23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus
Nandesuka, I'm putting together an RFC on Alienus, since I feel he's gone too far. Could you take a look and help out? Thanks, Jakew 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled
I'm sure you have your reasons for deleting the '3RR dispute' section here, but I have no idea what they are. Could you leave a note on my talk page to let me know? Thanks. Jakew 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RFM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alienus 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nandesuka, we're waiting on you to begin this RFM, so please sign. Alienus 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision
I noticed that you deleted edits I had made to the circumcision discussion. I don't have any problems with you removing the image I added - in the place that I had added it - but I still feel that the image (photos showing a "skin bridge" which is one of the things that can go wrong during circumcision) are important to the discussion. I'm not going to keep adding anything just to have it deleted within minutes, but the image I added was at least something different than the standard flaccid-erect comparison found on 20 or so other pages. It would be great if you could return the image I added to another section of the page, perhaps in the "Risks of Circumcision" section, where the image would be appropriate to the discussion.

Wado Ichimonji
VIZ renders the sword's name as "Wado Ichimonji" WhisperToMe 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

One Piece character articles
I've looked in the histories of several articles such as Monkey D. Luffy, and I noticed you are a fairly common contributor to this anime classification. I've done clean-up on all the Straw Hat pirates character articles and wanted to inquire if you were content with my edits. If any comments, please give me a shout on my talkpage. I'm curious because I'm ready to begin on the other articles and want to make sure general concensus is behind this. -ZeroTalk 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My edit to the Vulva article
Hi Nandesuka. I am a new Wikipedian and therefore must apologise if I screw up. But I think it's great and want to contribute. Jeffery O Gustaffson has recently deleted some of my pics because they infringed copyright. You have (understandably) reversed an edit of mine with a vulva image in the vulva article because you felt there was doubt. I have now discussed this with Gustaffson and assure you that the image sarahvulva.jpg which now illustrates the article is my own. So I have changed it back. Thanks for not deleting it.Bobble2 20:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Excuse me
You accused me of doing things I did not do in the capital punishment article and I would like an apology. You lumped me in with ER MD, for one, and my behavior has been nothing like his. Number two, I did NOT revert unrelated edits. The only edits I made that had anything to do with James (Ncp...)'s contributions were the relevant ones in capital punishment, nowhere else. James has been inserting the same POV thing time and time again. I have contributed positively to capital punishment (Doing a good rewrite of a very poor section on juvenile capital punishment for one) and it infuriates me to be lumped in with others who have not and are just participating in an editing war. YellowPigNowNow 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice reply. :) YellowPigNowNow 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Breastfeeding Page
Though I feel my page provides relevant, non-commercial information not provided by the page, I am wondering how it is any different from a couple of the other links. I applaud your high standards but would like to see consistency in your judgement. Two links on the page I think deserve attention given the high standards:

http://www.breast-feeding.us/ A page SELLING videos = http://www.eaglevideo.com/breastfeeding_video.htm

As long as you back me up, I will go about the edits. SallyB 16:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

a user you blocked has another ID and an RFC
Given the reaction, you may remember this one:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.111.172.198#4_day_block

There is an RFC on a user whose style, content, interests, links to other users and geographcial location are extremely similar to that user (and who were active simultaneously at one time in another RFC) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219

I would be grateful if you would have a look at that RFC, and consider whether this is the same user; whether the block achieved its intended effect; and whether or which of the opinions expressed in the RFC and the talk page seem to you to have merit. Midgley 00:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

I fail to see to this : "As in the U.S alone there were 123 revoked sentences of capital punishment since 1973, this argument is not a hypothetical one." A fact, and it's relevance to this article. constitue an opinion, ANY opnion. please enlighten me as you regard this a violation of a NPOV. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty paradox
Hello.

I fail to see how this : "As in the U.S alone there were 123 revoked sentences of capital punishment since 1973, this argument is not a hypothetical one." A fact, and it's relevance to this article constitue an opinion, ANY opinion for that matter. please enlighten me as you regard this in violation of a NPOV. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

De Wikkellkinderen
Nice. :) Nephron T|C 04:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That was actually pretty hard to track down. Nandesuka 11:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 198.54.202.5
Blocking for 3 months is really inappropriate. It is a shared IP (as reverse DNS would have shown you), so blocking it for such an extended period of time is completely useless. The norm is for short-term (ie., 15 minute) blocks in these cases. Please remove the block. As a side note, you can see User:Dewet/SAIX proxies for more information. Cordially, dewet|✉ 11:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I've been banned numerous times because SAIX implements transparent proxies, which quite literally affects hundreds of thousands of internet users.  This one seems to have been in service only since April, and its user contributions are barely over 100 &mdash; I've notified Tim Starling to add it to the proxy list as well.  But blocking any other anon who vandalises once every few days and contributes worthwhile information for three months is knee-jerk in my book, especially considering that you went from copyright warning on Swimsuit to three-month block in under 10 minutes, with no warning in-between.  I've warned anon vandals whose entire talk page consisted of months and months of the various test* warnings, with only short bans in-between. You should wield your administrative powers with more consideration, in my humble opinion. Cordially, dewet|✉ 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

email?
Did you get my last email? H e rmione1980 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Lax?
/me splutters with indignation ;-) Jakew 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious development
As requested in the edit summary, I'm notifying you of the latest development in the Alienus saga. Apparently, you are no longer welcome on his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alienus&curid=4756728&diff=52320700&oldid=52319933

I don't know what to say. I'm speechless. Jakew 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. Well, I can't say I'm terribly surprised.  It is certainly a variation I've never heard of before.  From my perspective, Alienus is welcome to do whatever he wants on his talk page, and I'll continue to engage with him in whatever (civil) way I see fit &mdash; I don't particularly view his fears as my responsibility.  I'm certainly not afraid to have his (or anyone's) words on my talk page.  Nandesuka 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mutilation
I counted three reverts. On the other hand you seem to have made four. Interestingly, you suggested I use the talk page, but the last content on that page is mine to which you have not responded. Tomyumgoong 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates
It seems you have deleted at least one template that has survived an RfD becuse you elected to scrutinize my user page. The Hell template is certainly an example. Is there a reason you have decided to override process, when the result of the standing process was KEEP? Tomyumgoong 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. See WP:CSD T1, which states that divisive or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted.  Kind regards, Nandesuka 10:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As it has already survived process, I would not be surprised to see the discussion of this edit or several of some of your other edits escalated. Tomyumgoong 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. For the record, though, note that speedy deletions are "process".Nandesuka 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this will serve as case law in determining if a low level admin has the right to overturn am existing consensus on TfD per "process." Tomyumgoong