User talk:Parasti/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- SoothingR(pour) 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

That is for like if I link my autobiography about my life, but I see your point. However, I need use "A Growing Metal Forum" as a comment which is true. My site can be notable one day. But even not it can still be of use to someone. And I think of it as not MY site BUT a site open to all METALHEADS. METALGOD42088 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Keyasy
So how does it suit for a new name :P Leyasu 08:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Danteinferno
Nice call on the templates. Hes doing this because i revised the article when he written it, mostly coz it was all a crock of shit. Now he is back and hes going around reverting my edits and reverting most any edits made to the articles that are 'his' that he lists on his user page.

Might want to keep any eye on the Gothic Metal page as such, make sure this vandalism and disruption of Wikipedia doesnt carry on. Leyasu 13:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gothic Metal article
No, there was no concensus reached. There were many arguments/points unsettled that Leyasu still failed to answer, and the archive of the discussion reflects that well. And removing those tags without bringing it up to discussion constitutes as vandalism. Danteferno 14:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A consensus was reached in which Danteinferno kept calling everyone sock puppets and trolls that didnt agree with him, another user also supervised the revision into being a pretty good article. It also follows through that my earlier point about Dante shows when he has been following every comment i make. Again, i will point out removing the tags is fine and doesnt count as vandalism when its an attempt at undermining the consensus which didnt agree with Dante. Leyasu 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dante is now making personal attacks in the comment bar and openly vandalising the page. If i keep reverting it i will violate the 3RR rule. Suggest you keep an eye on the page and sort out vandalism as neccessary. Leyasu 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"No Discussion" does not equal Concensus
I was offline on business for the second half of December, thus had no opportunity to edit and involve myself with the Wikipedia Gothic Metal discussion/article or other articles. Even if I was still here, there wouldn't have been any concensus, or difference as to what would happen - Leyasu would have one view of what he/she thinks should become of the Temp page, and others would think there was still work that needed to be done. (It appears user Idont havaname had some continued disagreement with Leyasu during my absence) Please re-consider the actions you took and review the GM discussion. Please explain how a "majority" accepted Leyasu's version as accurate and non-skewed. Because frankly, the only person who says otherwise is Leyasu. ---Danteferno 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And all the users who are sockpuppets, which apparantly, you are as well Parasti. Or you will become one, if you keep disagreeing. Leyasu 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "No Discussion" does not equal Concensus
No, you had no problems "expressing youself" - you're basically saying because no one objected to Leyasu's Temp edit within the past two weeks that there was concensus to it. Wikipedia does not work that way in the resolution of disputes, and one does not need to review the Gothic Metal archives to see the discussion that went on and that no consensus had taken place. Please don't bother responding to this message on my talk page. Danteferno 00:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Abbirittion
A request for Abbirittion is being made, in which you are listed as one of the users involved. This can be located on the Requests for Abbirition page. Leyasu 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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) 03:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Uhh... Leyasu.
Check the page history; they were anonymous postings all from the same IP address. (When I post my evidence, I'll probably include the diff on the talk page where either Danteferno or I say that.) He just signed them with different names. (I think one of those was signed Leyasu; he had forgotten to log in.)

At any rate, I'll be posting my evidence before the end of this week. (I haven't had time to collect it yet, but I should have something ready by the end of Saturday, if not sooner.) But thanks for asking; that was a pretty important thing to verify.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why they renamed the case to only include Leyasu. At Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, I suggested naming it "Leyasu vs. Danteferno" or "Danteferno vs. Leyasu", since some people have evidence against Danteferno and other people have evidence against Leyasu.  Maybe the arbitrators had a misunderstanding.


 * If the sockpuppets issue comes up, the arbitrators will probably do a CheckUser. However, it's interesting to note that User:Clontarf-the-mad has no other contributions, and likewise, Flagrancy has only two edits.  That's typical of sockpuppet activity; someone will create another account, get that account to support their point, and then stop using the new account they created.  Of course, whether or not he's actually done it would require a CheckUser.  Since most of the suspected sockpuppetry happened almost 3 months ago, it would be better to focus on things that he has done more recently. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, there is a request for mediation open between you, Leyasu, and Parasti here. If you are open to mediation with me as the mediator, all via email, drop me a note on my user talk page. --Improv 02:28, 4 February 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 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks
Just thought I'd drop you a note (three months late) for the solution you suggested at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Compact table of contents. It works well, and is the answer to my problem. Thanks! Noisy | Talk 01:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)