User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive7

Comments
Regarding your comment about "abrasiveness". Can I ask what specifically has given you that impression? -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)


 * Perhaps abrasiveness was the wrong word. I just don't think you're ready for adminship yet. I think you are a good contributor, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you give any specific feedback as to why I wouldn't be "ready"? Is your evaluation of that based on the other votes, or something else? -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)


 * Netaholic's behaviour on Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities and 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities has confirmed my choice was correct. I have placed a message stating as such on his webpage, however he has seen fit to remove it. Can't do much about this I suppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NWS
I placed a larger NWS logo on the NOAA page for you. Couldn't find any other items on the list that, but on the bright side, thats 1 down and 2 to go. TomStar81 22:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale
I haven't really followed the article's progression, but I know you're a driving force behind exploding whale awareness here. So congrats on the main page! Rhobite 01:27, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well done. Tim Ivorson 11:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

alferd packer
hey there, you whats really funny? i just happened to read that article maybe two days before i got your message! coincidence? --Larsie 19:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speedy...?
Hi. I'm not sure what it is you meant on my talk page, unless it had to do with that B-Movie Bandit stub from yesterday. I posted that for a speedy before it had been moved to VfD. Hope that clears things up. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template:In the news
It has been agreed that, since 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities is not a news item on any major service, it does not belong on Template:In the news. Please revert. -- Netoholic @ 02:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


 * Both sides are talking on IRC, and Jimbo expressed a dislike for it, also. -- Netoholic @ 02:09, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

OK, here is proof - it is not front page on any of these. As we only have space for three news items, surely this one is not valid. -- Netoholic @ 02:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


 * http://www.cnn.com/
 * http://abcnews.go.com/
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/
 * http://www.ap.org/
 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

(to Ta bu shi da yu)
 * You came very close to violating the 3 revert rule, and I was forced to protect the page due to the edit war (and why the heck did you put an NPOV header on OUR FRONT PAGE). You are an admin - please abide by the rules and courtesies of Wikipedia. Thanks, ugen64 02:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, do you really think it was appropriate to put an NPOV header on our front page? Secondly, edit warring in any form (whether or not you reverted three times, I never accused you of doing so) is unbecoming of an administrator. Thirdly, Netoholic raised valid concerns, to which you responded (and I applaud you for that), meaning that the objections were at least stated on the talk page. Thanks, ugen64 02:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I did not say it was against policy to revert, I stated reverting "is unbecoming of an administrator"; administrators are generally held to higher standards, and should definitely follow normal courtesies. As for your IRC comment - what exactly is wrong with discussing on IRC? It is a lot easier to get real-time comments between many different parties in a chat, rather than on the rather slow and edit-conflict-prone Wikipedia talk pages. Thanks, ugen64 02:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, it is very sluggish to do much of any discussion on Wikipedia, or on the mailing list (of which I am not a part, in any case). As for your behavior, it seems inherent (to me at least) that placing a glaring NPOV header (or any header, for that matter) on a main page template would violate common sense. While I should probably retract my statement of "please abide by the rules," it still remains that edit warring on any page is strongly discouraged, especially on the, by far, most highly viewed page on the Wikipedia. Thanks, ugen64 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In what way is discussing on the IRC channel *not* being held to a higher standard? It's a different matter if we were all congregating to decide which user to ban as a "troll" because we didn't like him or her, but in this case we were simply discussing whether or not the election fraud page belonged on the main page. While I had my own opinions, the only decisions I made were to protect the page due to an edit war (after having been informed of the problem by several users) then to proceed to warn you. There is no *standard* to which users are held, regarding their participation on the IRC channel.


 * Also, my comments regarding the "sluggishness" of the talk page were relative. I had decided to protect the page; however, I just offhandedly asked on the IRC channel if it was all right. I was not formulating any policy, nor making any decisions on IRC - I was simply asking for a casual confirmation. (Why does this seem like a repeat of my defense on Cecropia's talk page?) However, if you object to discussion on the IRC channel, I fully respect that; it seems unreasonable and unrealistic, however, to limit all wikipedia-related substantive discussion to the Wikipedia talk pages. Of course, I wouldn't decide to change the blocking policy on the basis of an IRC chat with a few of my wikifriends, but in this case, again, it was simply a casual, non-binding confirmation. By the way, don't take my comments as representative of anyone besides me - other users of the IRC channel may disagree with me completely, and hate me for this defense... Thanks, ugen64 03:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Rdsmith4 was on the IRC channel, but I do not think he said anything about the issue until after he reverted. Ed g2s (or whatever his username is) was never on the IRC channel. Our discussions were, as far as I can recall, regarding whether or not to protect the page, and while we did talk about your (in our opinion) questionable edits, we didn't make any IRC-collaborative decisions to revert you. (this is ugen64 on an IP) 208.27.204.4 18:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocking 216.148.246.90
Hi. I saw that you sent a final warning message to that user, and then a couple minutes later, you blocked them. However, if you compare their talk page with their contrib.s, you will see that they made their last edit BEFORE your final warning, so I don't think that their block was warranted just yet (they stopped vandalizing after your final warning). I'm unblocking, but if I'm mistaken, please let me know, and I will reblock (or you can do it). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 03:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Thanks for your message. I've left them a message on their talk page so that they know they're not invincible ;) -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 03:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It looks like they got the point :D, I hope they won't be vandalizing again. Personally I hate blocking users, that's why I give them at least three warnings before doing so- even if it's obvious vandalism.  Maybe it's a phobia I have? I've never had to block a user, but it's probably because of my long and slightly threatening vandalism warning ;).  "For your reading pleasure, I don't plan to archive [my talk page]." That's a subtle joke on the top of my talk page.  I also have an irrational fear about archiving my talk page :).  Maybe if it gets REALLY big, I'll archive it.  I should've archived it on the anniversary of my first edit on Wikipedia, but I suppose it's too late for that now :(.  Does archiving really make a difference, since most people use the 'post message' button? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, see your point ;). Maybe when it gets to a nice number...like 100.  I see why you wanted to block the user before they made any more disruption.  While I think you were a bit quick in actually blocking them, I definately agree with your reasons.  Anyhow, I'm going to go play, then sleep :).  Good night- it was nice talking to you :). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 03:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Edit summaries are for documenting the changes you made, not for the reasons you made them. Do not leave edit summaries which comment directly on other users ("First Netoholic removes it for "original research", then removes it because the info is duplicated. There is nothing wrong with summarising info. Reverting.") -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Stop trolling my user page. -- Netoholic @ 04:16, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

DO NOT INTERFERE WITH USER SUBPAGES. That is MY user space. You are abusing your admin rights in moving them rather than honoring my deletion requests. IF you do not desist I will take you directly to arbitration. I have never seen such a grevious abuse. -- Netoholic @ 04:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * You moved all of my old archives, and then just deleted the redirects. That is OUTSIDE the bounds of your rights. -- Netoholic @ 04:39, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do a copy of the archives and then delete the page, then recreate by pasting them back in. That OK with you? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why are you harassing me like this. I supported your adminship and have never taken issue with you. -- Netoholic @ 04:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this comment. Whether Netoholic supported my adminship or not doesn't fuss me in the slightest. I will not be treating Netoholic differently to any other user just because he voted for me. I have taken issue with Netoholic's behaviour and unilateral editing technique, which rubs many people up the wrong way in a consensus driven website. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Netoholic, these archives are duplicated in the page history because they were archived via copy+paste. As such I don't see any reason not to delete them. &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 04:47, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's a policy on copying talk pages, but why bother? The only reason I can see that you'd want to is to preserve the contents (which is already done)   &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 04:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
 * Just easier to see what people have written. I don't want to go through his history to find my past comments! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems like you're only doing it to make trolling harassment easier. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. However, I did do it because I dislike it when people just remove negative feedback, especially when it is regarding an ongoing issue. It makes communication very difficult, and others aren't able to see that others have been telling the user the same things. Basically I find it rude, even if technically you are allowed to do it. I mean, ever tried hunting for a particular comment in a talk history? It's hard as people don't usually write good edit summaries (if they write one at all!). Now I have the talk history, I can much more easily remember what I've written, and see what others have written also. My perogative. Netoholic would be allowed to do this also. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From IRC: [04:54:02] Netoholic: were you planning on adding links to the old versions of your talk page on the page? [04:54:20]  kate yes That's why I do as well - it's just as easy as having archive pages. &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 04:55, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Ta - If you want to keep a copy of Net's talk page lying around (which is fully in your rights under the GFDL), then the best thing for you to do would be to copy and paste it into a subpage of yours. Our de-facto policy in the matter is that his subpages are his to do with as he pleases (within reason), and by the same token, yours are yours. &rarr;Raul654 05:00, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Protecting that page was not appropriate. I am unprotecting it.   &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 05:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * I can't even lock it because Kate won't let me - I only unprotected the page in Net's user space. You're free to put whatever you want in yours (and he is free to not have what he doesn't want in his).   &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 05:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * No problem :)  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 05:19, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Cleanup
(Crosspost to User talk:Ta bu shi da yu and talk:Netoholic) - I have copied and pasted Netoholic's pages into Ta bu's subpages, and protected them (Ta's subpages). Netoholic can do what he likes with his subpages, and likewise for Ta. Ta can do with them what he wants. &rarr;Raul654 05:15, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * These are archive1, archive2, archive3 and archive4. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are going to keep them protected, they have to be listed on Protected page. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * You have to list them. Personally, nothing about this will make be look bad. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to unprotect them if we are all in agreement that they can stay where they are.  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 05:57, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please don't leave threatening warnings on my talk page. Kindly asking goes a lot farther. -- Netoholic @ 06:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * Please note: I asked Netoholic on his talk page what threats I was making, but he never responded. Unless you call clearing his talk page a "response". - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure - I think it'll be fine though :)  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 06:49, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) (P.S. you two need to go and do something else for a few hours)

Clarification
I wasn't accusing anyone specific of anything. I do find it highly suspect however that you, as an administrator of Wikipedia no less, would defend this behavior which is so obviously a violation of the rules, both written and unspoken. It also goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and the purpose of VfD. If VfD (and indeed Wikipedia in general) is going to turn into nothing more than a popularity contest (since, after all, whoever has more friends willing to sign up, vote, and leave again wins) this will end with my resignation as an editor from Wikipedia until such issues become addressed. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 09:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reminder
Have a chat to User:Jill St. Crux about Jonah 4. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible
Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to Template:In the news, I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 17:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arb comments
The Arbitration request you added comments to was opened by another user, and over different items. It's not really an open format to launch complaints. If you feel strongly, can I suggest you open a page on Requests for comment? This is a separate dispute, and really needs to follow all the proper steps. I want your concerns to be heard, rather than dismissed as not part of that Arb case. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * Raul654 commented on his page: "Netoholic asked me the same thing after he told you that. And I'll tell you what I told him - there's nothing stopping you from adding to that page - arbitration evidence pages are open to everyone. &rarr;Raul654 06:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)"


 * To add to Raul654's comments, a bit of my own... apparently, you can add evidence there, but if you are joining the case, I can also add evidence against you, such as your actions related to my user archive sub-pages, edit wars you've participated in, and other things like repeated harrassment of me. This will be looked by the arbitration committee just the same, and they would be allowed to rule on it.  I suggest we try and use other methods of resolution (even as simple as just talking) before we open this up larger than it needs to be. -- Netoholic @ 06:46, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)


 * Just how large does he want it opened? I'm only adding things that he did that caused problems. For my trouble I get threatened! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy
Because it wasn't an Australian cyclone. It didn't belong to anyone. No one ever refers to Andrew as an American hurricane, or to the Kobe earthquake as a Japanese earthquake. A natural disaster shouldn't get such a descriptor. --Golbez 20:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Human shields
Hi, sorry for the delay in getting back to you: Christiaan 09.43 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks
I will continue to remove personal attacks as I see them posted. No, they are not relevant to the issue of whether or not the article should be deleted. And they weren't "comments" by the way- If you'll notice, one was in bright red bolded font at the very top of the page. Comments go at the -bottom- of the page, not the top, and certainly not before the votes. If you wish to comment on Netoholic's conduct, do so on his talk page, the article's talk page, or make a short, relevant one under the "comments" section. Do not attempt to skew the vote by attacking the person that put it on VfD. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 10:44, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Putting a large bright red "OMG NETOHOLIC IS TEH SUCK" (which is basically what was said) at the very top of the page is abusive, not productive in the slightest, and does nothing to alleviate the growing tension between certain users. As I said, if you wish to point something out about Netoholic, place it under the Comments section on the VfD page. You'll notice when I discovered that the vote had been tainted by someone's actions on an off-site forum I didn't post it in great bold red letters at the top of the page- I made a comment about it, as is appropriate. By the way- I talked to FT2 about it. He agrees it's not necessary. So we'll just leave the personal jabs out of it okay? Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 11:11, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I will say this one last time: If you have objections to Netoholic that relate to the VfD entry, post them under "Comments", not under "Opposing views". They certainly shouldn't come before the list of votes. This is the last time I will address the issue here. I will, however, continue to remove any personal attacks or anything that is not directly relevant to the issue of whether or not the article should be deleted I see on the page if it isn't where it should be. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 11:49, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Sandbox BJAODN
I think such excerpts should go under Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sandbox In-sand-ity. (linked to from WP:BJAODN). JRM 13:31, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

change to vfd procedure without consensus, reverted
Some folks had started setting up numbered voting on vfd. I have alwayws been an opponent of numbered voting on wikipedia in general (though I can see the point on RfA, but only there!), and I can't believe folks would just like, go and do that on vfd without getting a consensus to do so first.

In fact, they shouldn't, so I reverted it out in the only 2 cases that were present.

One case someone reverted back, so I'm awaiting discussion on that particular case. :-)

Kim Bruning 13:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Since I last looked there's been some more folks using numbering. Oh dear. I've put up some comments on that at vfd talk Kim Bruning 13:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't revert my VfD addition again please.
From Violetriga's page

I am an admin. The vote was never closed properly with the vfd top and vfd bottom templates, so it never got closed. It must have been removed accidently from the VfD page, so I'm readding it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't talk down to me. I am an admin too - that makes no difference.  The article was deleted and a new article has been created about an entirely different subject.  It should be removed, archived and a new VFD created.  Please fix this before I have to do it again. violet/riga (t) 14:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I'm not talking down to you. I was letting you know I'm doing an admin task. If you felt I was doing this, sorry. I wasn't. I will double check what's going on and fix accordingly. You should have left a quick message on my page though. I would have sorted it out pretty quickly. Instead you've figured I'm doing things in bad faith. Unpleasant. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have just double-checked. There were two articles: one was called Band geeks. I deleted that article. The other article has no deletion history, was listed under VfD once and somehow was removed from VfD before the vfd top and vfd bottom tags were added. Those tags indicate that the vote has ended, no? It looks like the vote never ended. Hence the reason I relisted. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I took it the wrong way and thanks for sorting the problem out. :) violet/riga (t) 16:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it still needs clarification. Band geek was not up for VfD before - Band geeks was.  The articles are different.  Are you saying that you want to list the present Band geek article on VfD?  If so you'll need to present the reason why.  violet/riga (t) 20:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much sorted now... Looks like we got it. violet/riga (t) 00:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * VfP:Band geek = vote on the current ("music nerds") band geek article
 * VfP:Band geeks = vote on the now-deleted SpongeBob SquarePants episode Band geeks
 * VfP:Band geek vote 1 = deleted

Netoholic shifting comments on talk pages.
I was looking through FT2's history pages when I came across the quote, which I copied and pasted. However, FT2's histories are now only 50 long each, and I cannot find the section. I suggest you ask FT2. For further research, you might note the timestamp on Netoholic's posts on my copy (I've just logged in, so do not know if they are still extent anywhere.)

- Amgine 16:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I you are still interested in that link, I found it at.

Chuck F and the anon users
Thanks for the note about the anon. A few anonymous users have been reverting Chuck F, I don't think they are Reithy. You're correct that they should also have been warned about reverting 3 times. The difference, as I see it, is that Chuck should know better by now, he's been doing it for over a month. In the future if I warn Chuck I will also warn "his opponent," as the anon(s) are being called. You should also be aware that the AC is voting on a temporary injunction and it looks like Chuck and Reithy will be ordered not to edit in the main namespace at all. Rhobite 19:40, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Helllo123
I notice you have deleted my article Helllo123. I request that it be undeleted and go through the vfd process, as it was unfairly speedied. 61.68.201.23 06:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reverting Chuck F
Thanks for your comment on User talk:172.202.143.61, which was me. I understand that in trying to deal with Chuck's bad faith edits I have broken the three-revert rule on a number of occassions. But I cannot conceive of any other way to deal with him. He has constantly inserted his POV into articles and removed any neutral and truthful information he doesn't like. He immediately reverted any attempt at compromise and any reinsertion of accurate information he deleted. He sees Wikipedia as a place to promote his political beliefs and spin and will do anything it takes to do that, including inserting POV and untrue information into articles and deleting anything he doesn't like. Neither the RfC nor the arbitration case against him produced any moderation in his behaviour. I'm afraid I just lost my patience.

I'm not sure the revert wars have been entirely unhelpful. They did force him to start using Talk pages and discussing things, but not to any product as he simply kept reverting to his preferred version and telling others to explain themselves on Talk, then refused to accept anything anyone else told him. Looking at the edit history of libertarian capitalism it seems he was forced to discuss and compromise at one point on that article, but as soon as he thought the other editors bakcs were turned he reverted to his POV and factually incorrect version. I saw now recourse given the failure of discussion and his refusal to comrpomise other thann to keep reverting his reverts.

I have never come across such a bad faith editor as Chuck. Chuck needs to see that Wikipedia is not a place for him to promote his political beliefs at the expense of neutral and accurate information and must moderate his blanket reversions and POV editing. I suspect he will need to formally apologise to other editors before anyone can assume good faith about him in the future and given his track record I think it will be a long time before anyone will trust him. 172.202.202.103

Do you do wiki IRC? Can you wander over there if you do, and if Im round? FT2 23:15, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

American World University/delete
After a bit of detective work, I've found out what happened. The page was originally listed for deletion on October 31, which was then moved to vfd/old at the appropriate time (whenever that was), and stayed there until I cleaned it up yesterday. On November 12, User:Anthony DiPierro then moved the old discussion to Votes for deletion/American World University/archive and restarted the discussion at vfd without amending the link at vfd/old and in my haste yesterday I didn't check the dates of the discussion, just the votes. Technically therefore the discussion was still open on the old vfd debate, therefore making the new listing invalid; however as the article had had a re-write, that's normally enough to open the discussion anew, so quite what you want to do with it is up to you. Interesting to note though how willing Anthony is to accept an action that's against the normal process when it's in his favour... -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 23:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism by Ziegenpeter
No problem. I was checking my watchlist when I came across that. I did fix the articles he edited, by the way. Hope it'll stop for now. – Kaonashi 01:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

poll
Interfering with that poll is not appropriate. Feel free to vote, or leave comments, but you may not call an end to it. This is not an "arbitration", it is an effort to fix problems with an obviously POV article. Even the VfD consensus agrees that is true. -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
 * Netaholic's behavior is ill-intentioned and just another form of harassment. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. I just added this to the evidence page. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

land blubber
And I can't believe you don't see the difference between "land-blubber" and "land-blubber newsmen". And I can't believe you don't see that he is not referring to himself hint: newsmen, not newsman. And since I left your favorite piece in peace, back off. Go hunt zionist revisionist deniers. Mikkalai 07:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You sure like the last word to be yours, don't you? Get yourself children and teach them. Mikkalai 07:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Definition of irony: someone who accuses the other person of getting in the last word. And yes, I know I'm ruining the irony here :) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stalking
I changed the header of a voting option, not a signed comment, to remove what was obviously an unnecessary personal attack. Besides, you removed my entire comment. As of right now, I am of the opinion that you are stalking my edits unfairly, and I ask you to desist. You have exacerbated this entire chain of events, and I truly wish you will re-evaluate your actions, becuase I am feeling unfairly persecuted. -- Netoholic @ 08:03, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * I am investigating this. All of a sudden the 'pedia slowed to a crawl. If I have inadvertantly removed his comment via a rollback I will restore it very quickly. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Netoholic put the comments back, which is good. Have posted an apology of sorts on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(copied) Netoholic, your behavious has caused me to request the injunction, and it wasn't just the editing of other people's comments in the talk page. I've been editing here for quite a while, and I've had disputes with people, but I've never seen anything like your edits! They have caused more anger and annoyance that any other user I've met, and I've met a few users who would try the patience of a saint. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not out to cause anger and annoyance. I do think that you have greatly exacerbated this.  If I were to go around making comments like "Ta bu shi da yu AGAIN is removing user comments" or "oh, that's just Ta bu shi da yu causing trouble again", eventually, many people would get a skewed view of you.  This is what I have experienced for a long time.  This perpetual harassment and degradation is harmful to me, and my presence here.  If this is your intent, then we cannot bridge this gap ever, and we should just persue punitive measures to solve out problems.  If you're willing to accept that perhaps you have acquired a view of me which may be unfair, then perhaps at some point in the future we can come to understanding and return to assuming good faith about each other.  Please let me know. -- Netoholic @ 08:48, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * Except that this doesn't work. My removal of a comment has only ever happened once, and that was unintentional - I did the rollback because you decided to edit a comment by another user (you might say it was a "heading", but it was still a comment by the user). I am not harassing you, but I have been chasing around some extremely dodgy edits for the past few days. You have it on your own head that you are under the microscope at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Also note, I have acquired a view of him. My view is that he is a disruptive, contentious editor who has annoyed and angered lots of people with his edits. He seems to be under the impression that I'll just accept what he does and not form a view about him! Sorry, things just don't work that way, and its his own fault he's given me that view. No smoke without fire. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale
Hey mate! I tried watching this video, but unfortunately, something in my setup is wrong: I can't get sound, no matter what I try. (And yes, sound is on.) So I'll have to work from the transcript. Did I miss anything? I've included the article on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it.
 * 1) Reading the transcript, I do get the impression that indeed the voiceover with the "bbbb" phrase was done in the studio, not spontaneously on-site. (The pun seems to be made before the explosion.)
 * 2) I find the wordplay funny, and had absolutely no problems understanding it. And I'm not a native English speaker! IMO, it does belong into the article. Nobody ever said our articles had to be dull&mdash;lively writing is a plus! And that quote, as it stands now, seems to be correct. So I don't see any reason to remove it.
 * 3) Judging from the talk page of the article and the land blubber section above, it seems you're well on the way to sorting this out.
 * 4) Whether Linnman said "newsmen" or "newsman" is pretty irrelevant: since he himself is/was a newsman, too, he included himself in the statement, even if he used the plural.
 * 5) I think the current version ("Linnman joked...") is in fact better than the version before Mikkalai came along.

BTW, I very rarely revert other editors right away. I usually take things to talk first, maybe even only after a few hours. Especially when a passer-by makes changes I don't agree with that has a significant advantage: a passer-by is unlikely to stay for long and reason about an edit he most likely did spontaneously. In most cases, there's no response, and one can just quietly rephrase the changes again. (And sometimes they do stay. But then one can still argue reasonably about it without anybody having been reverted. Reverting tends to get the blood pressure up.) Lupo 10:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no objections in the way as it is now. The original version stuck like a sore thumb. In a joke it often happens that if you change a single word it turns from funny to silly and worse. Mikkalai 16:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response re CE
To make a point. I quickly wrote it up in Discussion, you simply looked between edits. :) I won't challenge a further revert; I did that to direct attention to talk, to air my concerns. --Golbez 11:11, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are very probably right - but it worked. :) --Golbez 11:14, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I you; I don't get into revert wars, but what struck me about this was that it just didn't seem newsworthy, which is why I wanted to discuss it further. If I had simply disagreed with the content but still found it newsworthy, I wouldn't have said anything. Well, maybe one edit. --Golbez 11:17, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Why did I make that page?
That page was a redirect to the Goatse.cx article... WhisperToMe 23:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Ziegenpeter made it into a redirect. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Hick.org/goat/ for a history that shows this. I will ban Ziegenpeter in a min... WhisperToMe 23:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made the "hick.org/goat/" redirect to the "Goatse.cx" article on Wikipedia as that more or less is a mirror site to Goatse and therefore is the same thing. Ziegenpeter came and changed it into a link to the actual site. Also, Ziegenpeter was vandalizing other articles and got an indefinite block from another contributor. WhisperToMe 23:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very strong support
I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your very kind words. I means alot to me that you showed such feeling in support of me.

Thanks again, ClockworkTroll 23:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

edu sites
Can I use photos from .edu sites and use them as public domain photos? I just uploaded one. It's Straight Hall.

Darwinek, 10:00 UTC, 16 Oct 2004

Wikinews demo up and running
Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later. You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles. If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 01:59, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Arb page comments
From the top of the Evidence page - "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence." You'll need to move your comment to another section, or the talk page. I plan on introducing more evidence, and your comment placement interferes. -- Netoholic @ 02:25, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * OK, I won't roll him back again, so long as he adds a reason for adding this evidence. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WTF ?!?! -- Netoholic @ 02:27, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * I got your message after I read this on my talk page. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should be rolling back my evidence AT ALL! -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * Correct. I didn't. I put my comment back, and didn't alter your statements. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Your comment should not be there, per the Evidence page opening section.
 * 2) You should never use rollback EXCEPT as an anti-vandalism tool.  You were not given that tool as an admin just to make subjugation of other's edits easier. -- Netoholic @ 02:33, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * Oh please. I could have just editted and reverted. It's not really any different. Taking out my note could be seen as vandalism, incidently. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When are you going to move your comment? -- Netoholic @ 03:26, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * I thought you already did! Gah! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Even though it would have been non-controversial and appropriate, I leave it to you since you've announced misgivings about that in the past. -- Netoholic @ 04:02, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

You need to move ALL of your comments out of the "Evidence against Ta bu shi da yu" section. That includes all of your signed comments. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict
Alberuni has been trying to add the 9/11 attacks to this page, as part of an absurd conspiracy theory view of the world in which everything the U.S. does is for Israel's benefit. Well, if he wants to add it to the page, he'll need to get consensus first in Talk:, which I imagine might be hard, given the ridiculousness of his position. Please note that controversial additions or edits to articles should be cleared in Talk: first, this is Wikipedia convention. I also recommend that everyone read Be bold, especially the second half, which covers this exact situation. Jayjg 03:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg assumes that everyone in the world shares or should share his extremist Zionist perspective on all issues related to the Mideast. It is widely accepted that the 9/11 attacks are related to, if not a direct consequence of, US foreign policy, particularly the extreme pro-Israeli bias in US foreign policy. The Iraq war is more complicated because of the oil issue but I outlined the case on the Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict and placed it on the RfC list to solicit comments from other editors and establish consensus. You participation would be welcome. --Alberuni 04:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see Requests_for_comment and Talk:Arab-Israeli_conflict. --Alberuni 04:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * By the way, views of neutral third parties always welcome. Jayjg 19:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections
You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

163.1.141.7 has returned
S/he has blanked her talk page. You had warned her/him about blanking pages, but I would think that deleting your own talk would be an exception, dunno. Anyway, my guess is that activity on Ruzwana Bashir is more likely`. . . thanks for your help on it in the past. Cheers! Chris vLS 06:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TfD
The items have not been listed long enough, and your apparent bias means you yourself shouldn't. I want to hear objective outside opinion. -- Netoholic @ 08:19, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * Ok, I really don't think you should handle TfD any more.
 * Template:MontyPython - you removed it saying "no consensus to delete", but there are 2 deletes (plus nominator) there, and 2 keeps.
 * Template:Recipe moving - you removed it saying "no consensus to delete", but there are 1 deletes (plus nominator) and 1 keep.
 * I'd really like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't just targeting the items I requested for deletion with these choices, so please restore them for further voting, or delete them. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Noticed your delete of Template:OoP mess on a 4-3 vote. I have no idea what the template was. But I have been under the impression that the standard for deletion of anything was more than a simple majority. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but that's certainly the way it goes on the regular VFD page. Wolfman 15:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in undeleting, as I don't even know what the template was (just saw it in the delete log). I just was curious about the vote standard, and thought I'd ask.  I appreciate your reply. Wolfman 16:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've also replied on Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion about this one. Specifically, you forgot to replace the text of the template on the pages it was in use. -- Netoholic @ 16:03, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * How about Netoholic reads up on deletion policy. It has to be rough consensus. Also, I was eventually going to get around to fixing up those links. Sheesh. There've been a few things I've had to do tonight. Like block Chuck_F for 24 hours. Sigh. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How about you stop being so insulting? The WP:TFD page has a "holding area" at the bottom of the page. That is where templates, which have been decided to be deleted, are listed.  The "owner" or anyone else, then goes through an pulls the template out of the related pages. Immediate deletion of a template without cleaning the pages is incorrect procedure, and really "I'll get to it later" is not acceptable. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * I can also assure you that I have had many occassions to become very familiar with all of the policy pages, including deletion. This isn't about policy, it's about procedure on the template deletion page. In fact, TfD maintenance doesn't even require the presence of an admin, since we have the holding area.  Admins would only need to be involved in the final deletion. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Rollback misuse
And please stop rollback-ing my edits. In fact, just stop using that function all-together until you can learn how to properly identify the right times to use it. -- Netoholic @ 15:36, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing my comments with your last rollback. That one has convinced me beyond a doubt that you should not have access to that feature. -- Netoholic @ 16:31, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

"Vandalism" - so then I assume you posted about me on Vandalism in progress, so other admins can watch out for me? "Sneakiness" - yes, it must be very sneaky for me to make two edits in a row on a single page (sarcasm). Your tendendancy towards carelessness with that rollback function is the problem. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Jihad
I've replied to you on the Talk page. RickK 09:22, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

While you're going through the article, your comments on Talk:Jihad would be welcome. - Mustafaa 04:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. - Mustafaa 23:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello --

And thanks for the nice note. I hope to post some changes on this article today, Godwilling. Still a rookie, obviously. Eager to get your feedback. BrandonYusufToropov 14:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now locked ... do you know how long it is likely to stay that way? BrandonYusufToropov 01:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "Extreme deletion" text on the textfiles.com VfD...
It's Radman1 who keeps doing it.

Radman1 inserts the RfED text, for what I think is the first time...

Radman1 re-inserts the "RfED" text, which had been removed since you can't VfD a VfD; his edit summary claims "rv vandalism by fvw"...

and Radman1 inserts the RfED yet again.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 06:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question
I saw that some of the "fallacy of only objections" stuff was copied to User:Pename's user page. Is there a case/precedent for somewhere also recording the following comment he made:


 * I'm extremely sorry to have to tell you this, but you're not exactly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.--Pename 05:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

&mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:10, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Timeline of Islamist military history
Please see Template talk:Timeline of Islamist military history. I have some comments there and since you have been the only one to work on Timeline of Islamist military history. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * You should ask User:Pename about it. He's the original author (check out edit history of Jihad), I merely moved his table to a template. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You really think asking him will help? :D &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Pename
Pename is obviously in the wrong, and that is not in disupte. He is a new contributor to Wikipedia and he is totally oblivious to policy. As an admin you are held to a higher standard and must act as such. Pename has made some good points, as well as some bad ones, and you seem to have neglected those in favor of knocking him down. I claimed you were appealing to the fallacy of nothing but objections. That is not a personal attack, but an observation of your interaction with Pename. It may or it may not be correct, but it is certainly not a personal attack, since it is an observation regarding your comments, and not you yourself. For example, on the Jihad page, you told Pename that his "sources leave something to be desired", yet you neglected to specify which source as he requested. Instead, you opined with another objection, "all your sources are from either extremist websites or extremely POV sources". Then, in the section, More questions for Pename! you engaged in further objections, which were, in a way, good faith requests for clarification. However, you compounded those requests with further objections by posting leading questions like "Isn't this just your POV and your interpretation of events" and "are you misrepresenting a people group here". I agree that Pename needs to cite sources, but your use of objections gives the mistaken impression that Pename is in error, when in fact, you have not shown that to be true. It is Pename's responsibility to substantiate his claims, and there is no need to engage in objections until he has done so on the talk page. --Viriditas 08:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Whether he was a newbie or not is most relevant, so I disagree with you on that point, and I've already explained my position on Pename's talk page. And, I have previously discussed which comments I thought were "irrelevant" and/or possibly "frivilous" - above this text.  As for linking to a non-existent article and creating that article after I have pointed it out, I don't understand why that upsets you.  I created the article after you wrote "I've never heard of before...I notice there is no such Wikipedia article!"  Finally, thank you for the link to Pename's claims.  While he obviously has trouble citing specific claims, Alberuni is not going out of his way to help him, either. --Viriditas 09:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, I just thought I would pipe in to support Ta bu shi da yu.


 * Let me say the following by way of disclaimer, let me say up front that I am a Muslim and sympathise with Islam. And also not I am not sympathetic to Islamists (which might make me the answer to the "who are liberal Muslims question").


 * But I am also a strong believer in the importance of strict NPOV policies for an encyclopedia to really live up to its name. See, for example, what I am trying to do at Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy.


 * Which is why I spend time on Wikipedia. And why I think it is a bit unfair to pick on someone like Ta bu shi da yu when they challenge when they try to get someone to tone down a point of view that is coming through in their work on Wikipedia. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy
I think Reithy may have requested new passwords for all the arb candidates. Annoying. Very Verily 00:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template:In the news revert war
I have protected Template:In the news due to the revert war in which you participated. I will unprotect it soon, but I ask you to please not edit war on a main page element again in future. - Mark 03:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The message I posted above was the identical message I posted to every other person who reverted more than once. I did that so I would not appear to be taking sides. I'm sure you would prefer that I just warn the other user, but then again you weren't exactly doing much to stop the revert war yourself. I'm sure you are capable of understanding the importance of keeping vandalism and stupid disagreements such as this one off the Main Page, the first page most visitors see when first visiting Wikipedia. - Mark 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MacGyverMagic for adminship
I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Requests_for_adminship and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:35, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Random question
Does your name mean "He is not a big fish"? Or have I got the wrong tones? - Mustafaa 15:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A quick note to say thanks


I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship and for helping me choose my new name. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!
I think I'll accept your nomination. Thanks for the kind thoughts and words. - Lucky 6.9 03:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The person who made the comment is, to put it mildly, difficult. I think it's best I withdraw for now. Again, my sincerest thanks. - Lucky 6.9 05:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, I do not bite newcomers. Quite the opposite.  Check out User:Poppyhaitian to see what I mean.  Talk to you Monday! - Lucky 6.9 05:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, about Gzornenplatz's comment on Lucky's nomination - they're hardly "valid stubs". Gzornenplatz demands that the B-Movie Bandit crap (I refuse to even call them stubs, because they're not even that) be kept, and refuses to dedicate any time to even wikify them, let alone expand them into something vaguely resembling a useful stub. Whether they're actually speedy deletion candidates is a grey area, however, so redirecting them (there's usually nothing to merge) has become one way of dealing with them, and to my knowledge, Lucky isn't alone in doing this. Ambi 06:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)