User talk:Danteferno/Archive 2

Thanks

Thanks for your support of the mall goth article, it's been under a rather sustained attack by people who seem to think wikipedia needs to conform to there own standards of notability. Its not my article but it really upsets me the way most of the administration think that making a comprehensive encyclopedia involves deleting 100's of articles.--Pypex 14:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fotosleep3.jpg

If that is the case, a {{promophoto}} will do just fine. Here, there you go.Soothing R 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for adding that comprehensive description!Soothing R 21:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the evidence on this case, it's generally preferred to use links to diffs, and not links to the history of articles, or section links to talk pages. These links have a tendency of becoming worthless after a few months, and often people go back and look at an RFAr long after it's finished. :) --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paradiselostphoto.jpg

The problem is that you have no source to back up the claim that this is a promo photo. I removed the no source tag because I believe it is a promo photo but someone else may challenge its validity in the future. If you want the image to stay you need to cite the source of the image -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will help. Add that info to the image description page. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 02:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbcom case evidence.

Hi, I just wanted to say that I registered on December 4th (or 3rd, depends on where you live), as seen in my contribs [1], so would be nice if you fixed that. Thanks. -- parasti ^(talk) 09:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I read your comment on Idont's page, and I just wanted to clarify a few things; sorry I use your talk page for that. I think you do have a good enough reason to dislike Leyasu in terms of a person to person relationship, and I think the same is true for Leyasu. People are different, that's all there is to that. The point is, there is no place for such feelings on Wikipedia. Somewhat a benefit of the internet is that you can walk away any time, and as you can see that is exactly what I did in regards to the gothic metal article. I don't think Leyasu's right all the time and you're always wrong, and in fact if it wasn't for the damn edit summary of my only revert admittedly in the middle of the night and way too questionable, I wouldn't be even part of the discussion. The only discussion where I and Leyasu have been involved together. I bet he has more such sock puppets with over 100 edits and different grammar/spelling (and from different countries, for that matter) waiting for a chance to get used. Like on the Children of Bodom article, for example. He's clever, isn't he.

As you can see I indeed have had no conflicts with Leyasu, and all I see is you saying that I have vandalised the article and calling me a sock puppet. I did not at first defend Leyasu, as I have previously said on the talk page. I was not talking about things that weren't supported by the links he provided, I was defending those that were supported. You did not pick them out, you tossed away them all. I didn't think that's right. I thought we should be able to go for a compromise, and really just explain Leyasu that stuff that doesn't have sources (and isn't logical) won't be in the article. In a calm manner that would work beautifully, because Leyasu does not have "destroy Wikipedia" in his list of stuff to do, believe it or not. But, both of you are biased towards one another, so there you go, a dead end. And I have never provided evidence against evidence that is true in regards to you or Leyasu, only the one that is questionable or needs further insight, and that is obvious from evidence provided by Idont which does not feature a single false claim without a diff. I only see you trying to blame Leyasu in all diseases and the upcoming end of the world and your "polite" comments to other unrelated users before the gothic metal discussion.

Admittedly, I have tried to assume good faith, and have failed, for what seems to be a rather obvious reason. That's why I have stepped aside.

Oh, and on a different note, I think I can provide more evidence of you and Leyasu being the same person, than you provide about me. Have a nice day. -- parasti ^(talk) 09:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, on top of that, I expect an apology from you after the CheckUser. On my talk page, not Leyasu's. You're hopeless. -- parasti ^(talk) 19:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]