User talk:Nandesuka/Archive 2

Kaboom I was noticing your edited article on Kaboom cereal i was wondering in what state could i go about purchasing this cereal. I have not found it anywhere. Please Reply

Learning to walk before you start to run

Please consider who you are blocking and for what reason. You have now been an admin for two months? I hope that it hasn't gone to your head. In two months you have not only blocked me, but WMC as well! I strongly suggest you consider the appropriateness of such actions, and the Wikipolitics of who you are making enemies with. — Dunc|☺ 23:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully considered the appropriateness of blocking you for telling another editor to "fuck off", and for removing your own block, and decided that it was, indeed, appropriate. Your amusing message on my talk page only reinforces the correctness of my decision. But thanks for expressing your concern for my wellbeing. Nandesuka 23:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

global cooling

Thanks for your recent edits there. William M. Connolley 16:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks from me too :-) Your request for a poll has been advertized by SEW - see:

I have followed him with a clarification on each. Thought you would be interested. Enjoy - Vsmith 02:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. He seems to be missing the point, though. Nandesuka 12:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I might visit

Thought I might visit. Congrats on the Admin.- ship position. I'm relatively new here myself, just helped another Wikipedian become a Admin.Martial Law 09:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web comics

You're misreading. [1]. Phil Sandifer 16:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What citation format do you prefer?

Hi. I don't want to wade into the SEWilco battle over footnotes, but I personally do prefer the footnote style, so I was just wondering (because I couldn't find it in any of the discussions I have read) — what is the citation format you prefer? --Doradus 16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sources added

I went to the nearby university library and found some books in ENGLISH (yeah!) telling about the unsolved question why most men experience erections when waking up in the morning. The sources are now at the bottom of the page. Hope this will do. --Fromgermany 18:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madness and the Minotaur

Nice to find I'm not the only one who remembers this title, but all I have to say is -- where was its Wikipedia article when I was trying to produce an entry on it for Mobygames back in May? 8) Pseudo Intellectual

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision advocacy Jakew 10:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bolo computer game

While the 1983 version of Bolo is indeed similar, the current Macintosh (and thus clones) are not in anyway based on any work from Synergistic Software per the author's response. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.games/browse_thread/thread/14a4680563b81134/9826ee67809edab5?lnk=st&q=bolo+apple+%5D%5B&rnum=1#9826ee67809edab5 I have discussed this with other "veteran" Boloers and they agree with my statement, however I felt the need to run this past you before editing anything myself given your edit responses.

Also various links around the Bolo community are rather outdated, yes, however they seem to come back online from time to time. (unsigned comment by 72.129.177.38)

Reading that link, the author doesn't say anything at all about the Apple II Bolo, other than acknowledging its existence by quoting it. Certainly, he doesn't explicitly say "my version is not in anyway based on any work..." So I think you're inferring something that isn't there. Nandesuka 06:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but also he does not say "this *is* my work", nor can I find any documentation or otherwise stating that this is the case so your addition to the Bolo wiki is wrong and thus I would be interested in reading where you've found this information other than "it looks the same" which is infact "inferring something that isn't there". The 1983 version is indeed a tank game very similar but the Macintosh version wrote by Stuart Cheshire was not inspired by it.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bolo/browse_thread/thread/d4dd61913da0069a/a11a4f9f6e80547e?q=1983&rnum=1#a11a4f9f6e80547e

On a lighter note I am not sure if this is the proper place to post such content and would kindly take to any suggestions you have as to where this post would fit in better.

Thanks.

J hood 11:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)J_hood[reply]

chabad

Regarding your comments to chabad. I have to admit I am not the best writer. However when speaking about reverting to a better written version you must take into account, whether this better written version is accurate and in a NPOV. I would like to ask for your help in improving the chabad article from a grammatical view. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer's false accusations of using a sockpuppet

I am disappointed to see you believe Eliezer's shameless fictions. And that is what they are. I edit under my Username, RK , and have repeatedly signed my comments. I cannot imagine why would believe otherwise.

It is true that Wikipedia periodically signs people out without noting so, and this has happened to many people, many times. Sometimes the error lies in Wikipedia, sometimes in the contributor's personal computer, and sometimes because of the firewall/security wall that lies between the computer and the internet. A few years ago these problems, with their various sources and solutions, were discussed in the Wiki-En list.

But this cannot possibly apply to me. I re-sign into Wikipedia over and over to prevent this from happening, and I sign my contributions. The comments on the Discussion page clearly say RK , and I am looking at them right now in another window as I type. For Eliezer to try and mislead you and others into believing otherwise is just pathetic, and a violation of all civil norms that Wikipedia contributors are expected to follow.

Please read the comment page: see my quotes, fully signed, for yourself. Elizer's claims that I am doing this anonymously are false and misleading. RK 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clarkson

Hi Nandesuka, I've put a query on the talk page and the article's on my watchlist now. Let me know whether you're requesting admin action or just that I look at it as an editor. If it's the former, I can't edit the article or express a view, except about what the policies say. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MagnaVox

Is this a personal attack? —Locke Cole 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humour

Sometimes, I must say, it's great to see that some of us Wikipedians have such a great capacity for subtle euphemistic humour. An extended vacation? :-) :-) :-) --HappyCamper 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFanatic

Is it just me, or is there a growing cult of personality around IRC? I've seen several RfAs recently where I felt it, and the TLA-anti-vandalism crew in particular appear to be going this direction. This isn't a commentary on the nominees per se simply that while the bar is rising all the time elsewhere (what? only 20,000 edits? too soon.) here it seems to be dropping.

Unrelated - There's a straw poll at WP:WEB talk regarding syndication. Feel like jumping in to something hot and seeing what you think?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reduced to spam and begging

(Pictue me on bended me, hands clasped) Please come and voice an opinon at Wikipedia_talk:Websites#Straw_poll regarding the facts of "syndication" indicating notability.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a laugh point!

You are being awarded a laugh point for your recent comments in the Circumcision advocacy AfD. They got a chuckle out of me. → ***Ξxtreme*** Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — this is my very first award! I shall put it in a place of honor on my user page. Nandesuka 04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

Hi Nandesuka. We don't restore copyvio's, period, unless we have permission from the copyright owner. The only solution is to write an original article. Rewriting in place is not acceptable without a total rewrite since it remains a derivative work which the original copyright holder retains partial rights to (and which we thus cannot release).

Please could you redelete any infringing versions of those articles and start from scratch? (Or blank the articles with {copyvio} and rewrite on the /Temp page,but that seems unnecessary.)-Splash^talk 17:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, but this is risky. We have no right to display the copyrighted text in the meantime. Also, if the work is derivative, as I said above, we still can't use it. This is because, in my approximate understanding, the original author retains copyright in the unrewritten parts thus we cannot redistribute them. So only a total rewrite is acceptable. Good faith doesn't extend to what is ultimately stealing others' work. -Splash^talk 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I checked, and both articles are definitely copyvios. Storcloud with your intro is fine, but you really do need to redelete the history. There's no way we can justify retaining it. SCinet should not be restored, for the same reasons. It's unfortunate, but cheating isn't allowed under the law, and it's not good-faith (especially given the new message below the edit box). [[SCinet] could be unprotected, however. A close eye would need to be kept on it. -Splash^talk 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, you did one, I did the other and now they're fixed! (PS I redirected the lowercase version of Scinet →SCinet)-Splash^talk 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near anonymous RfA votes comment reply

Hey. I responded to your comment at my RfA page. Hope that helps! :-) WikiFanatic 23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, so how can one be subtle?

I wonder if it were possible for you to muse... to yourself, you understand... on your own talk page? If so, anyone who on his or her own decided to come by and look would be doing so without any prompting. That way, no one ends up in the stocks, getting rotten vegetables with rocks hidden in them thrown at his head.

Also, on another matter, I've been concerned about the lensing effect of IRC for a while. It's not that a candidate is good or bad or that it is always right or wrong, but rather than a candidate's participation in IRC focuses reaction on RFA, and the airing of an issue by a dogged typist there can focus reaction on an AfD, poll, or discussion. This sort of rally point is actually not supposed to be happening. I can't see how anyone can spam talk pages half so effectively with two hours' effort as one can "spam" (meaning influence a vote or deliberation) by hitting IRC for two minutes. On a talk page, someone can say, "Vote for Bob!" On IRC, the person can answer the questions about Bob, can hear how Bob rescues kittens from rooftops, how Bob has vowed to support the good people and bash all the dirty people, etc., and all in far less time. Nor can that be changed so long as the IRC channel exists, as it would be absurd to say "#Wikipedians exists for discussing matters of interest to the Wikipedia community, unless those things are being decided currently." Geogre 10:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

eatgray. Ownay Iay avehay nanay eadhay aicheay. Geogre 14:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarkson

Hi Nandesuka, thanks for your note. I haven't finished with Clarkson yet. I'm just in the middle of something else at the moment, but I'll be back to it at some point today. It's kind of hard to know what to do with it because it's so full of Clarksoncruft. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Quitting Thing

Yeah, I just assumed that I had lost face and would have to do things that would make me have to leave in order to make things work out and blah, blah, blah. Thanks for the intervention, here's a barn star for your trouble, my friend. Please let me know if I can help out in the future. karmafist 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistyped block

You blocked Pigsonthewing, or tried to: 17:14, 9 December 2005 Nandesuka blocked "User:User:Pigsonthewing" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Violating personal attack parole in edit summaries. ("he clealry hasn't "left", despite the lies to that effect on his user page)"). Notice the extra "User:"? You don't need to type "User:" into the box--it's filled in for you. You will probably want to block the correct username. Cheers! Demi ^T/_C 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Rare RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

Nandesuka:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. I was surprised to see you there, and presume that you found your way to my RFA as a consequence of the comments I left Geogre on his talk page. However it transpired, I appreciate your comments and compliments, and will strive to live up to them.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the motion to remove Price Anderson

Dear Nandesuka, Clearly most people saw the piece for what it was. Hint: Katefan0's statement includes a foreshadowing of "breaching experiment". I used the art form of psuedo-realism (think War of the Worlds) to educate readers on the full force and effect of the Price Anderson Act. Benjamin Gatti 05:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-reason

Hi Nandesuka, I see that you're one of the admins who seems to be online right now. I was wondering if you can help me on this: I believe I can make Wikipedia:Template messages/All and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion disappear from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I just need Template:Db-reason to be unprotected for a moment. My comments are posted at Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion. Would you consider giving this a try? Thanks. (I've already managed to prevent "Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion" from showing up at Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion, evidently) Shawnc 07:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance, hopefully the changes are without errors. Shawnc 07:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone

You know what Nandesuka. I don't need your two cents...the block was unreasonable, and if Curps took two seconds to read my contributions along with my messages as he should have none of it would happen. If someone answered the first two "spamms" it wouldn't have gone any farther. So please get out of my wikispace...Chooserr

Nandesuka is now one of the four admins who have

abused Chooserr for welcoming people and reminding people with bad usernames of the rules, then
blamed Chooserr for complaining about the punishment, and then
punished Chooserr for complaining that he was being oppressed

And the discussion over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again now has enough links that everyone can see what happened and what a bunch of self-serving speed-trap deputies these admins are being. --24.221.8.253 07:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that I, or any other admin, has behaved inappropriately, then I encourage you to complain on the administrator's noticeboard, or to open a Request for Comments or a Request for Arbitration against me. Have a nice day, Nandesuka 07:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could that not be an indication that you might not be on the side of consensus on this topic? User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, you asked for it, you can certify it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges
--24.221.8.253 08:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't certify it, obviously, because I believe you are terribly mistaken, and certifying it might give people the mistaken impression that I agree with, well, with nearly anything that you are saying. But I look forward to hearing the community's feedback once you find someone else to certify it. Best of luck, Nandesuka 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michigan Knight

Hi! The article at Freemasons Criticisms was created by User:Michigan Knight, who is most likely a sockpuppet of USer:Lightbringer. This identical article (verbatim) has been created before (twice now) at Freemasonry Criticism by ~~User:SarekOfVulcan~~ and User:Arb Admin, both considered sockpuppets of Lightbringer, who was banned by the ArbCom from editing Freemasonry-related articles. Look at the contibutions for User:Michigan Knight, his user page claims he is an admin, but it is clear that his user page and talk page are just cut-and-paste from somewhere else (look at their histories). Hope that helps! - orion eight (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you! - orion eight (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... last time I checked, I wasn't a Lightbringer sock. However, it looks like Lightbringer has created User:MS Japan as a sock to spoof existing user User:MSJapan--SarekOfVulcan 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Cruz

I tried to fix it. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 18:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Walters

Why did that article get deleted? Admittedly it was very brief (I didn't have time to put in more detail) but I think it did mention why he is noteable, and I clarified this on the talk page. It was also linked to from elsewhere. It looks like the user who nominated it for speedy deletion has a bit of history of overuse of speedy deletion requests.

Totally Inappropriate 4 Day Block

Your actions in imposing a 4 day block is inappropriate for a number of reasons. Firstly you make a number of allegations which are simply not borne out by the facts. Secondly, you made absolutely no effort whatsoever to investigate the matter either properly or at all. And thirdly, you did not seek my comments at any point. You acted unilaterally and make allegations that no one has ever made and which are simply fallacious.

The main reason you give for imposing a 4 day block is wholly wrong. You claim I do not identify what it is that is POV. However, I have identified that material and made strenuous polite and civil efforts to make sure it is crystal clear.

You in fact admit you know absolutely nothing about the topic concerned so you are in no position to judge.

Further, in relation to the allegations you make, you provide no evidence whatsoever nor any examples.

I therefore ask you, as an administrator which is the appropriate mechanism for taking this matter to a resolution.

Further, as you impose a 4 day block that allows me no opportunity to make any representations as all effort at editing will be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.172.198 (talk • contribs)

The above was left on your userpage. I've moved it here. JFW | T@lk 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have put a long note on my User Talk page. However, still not a shred of fact is presented to support the allegations being made. That is because there is none. If there were any you could have provided them by now. You should have provided them before taking any action. So let's see the specifics.

81.111.172.198 23:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foreskin restoration

You might want to keep an eye on Foreskin restoration, you'll find the same issues there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SEWilco_and_footnotes_again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is trying to tidy up references, you two (you and slim) are reverting, and between you all there is now a right dogs-dinner of mixed styles on the page. Please go and sort out one style or the other, probably the first that was invoked as suggested in the guidelines. Have a nice day as you are fond of saying. --81.77.46.30 15:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi Nandesuka/Archive 2: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005.

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

OCRT

Sorry about the brusque edit summary, jguk was mass deleting stuff from about 40 different pages and I was cleaning up after him. Why do you think OCRT is not a reasonable source? They cite sources, generally write fairly neutral articles (yes, the FGM article is an exception, but virtually every organization with a policy on it is against that) and they are a very popular website that ranks high in search engines and gets tons of hits. What is the problem here? Firebug 13:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AD vs CE at the Village Pump

Hi. You recently edited the era formats in Sophocles, so I'm letting you know about a discussion I'm starting at the Village Pump, in case you're interested in helping to find an NPOV solution to this issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Euripides

I'm not going to violate the 3rvt rule this time...and I won't let you trick me into it. But I do suggest that you revert it for it was consistent under BC/AD before BCE/CE. So please, please revert it. Thank you, Chooserr 18:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. you can view its history if you like

Your edits to chabad

Regarding your recent edit to chabad, As you are aware it is not just Feldman, Berger and Keller that condemm this belief, rather it is all of Orthodox Judaism including chabad. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no chabad organization that holds such beliefs, they are aginst what Judaism and what chabad stands for, and this belief is condemed by every orthodox person both whithin and outside chabad. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the claims are notable and verifiable, however they are in regard to indviduals, and those indvidual's beliefs are not just condemened by the rabbis that RK brought down , but by all rabbis including chabad. To quote one rabbi implies that the rest may disagree with him which is not the case. This is like one Jew believing in Jesus, and having a rabbi saying that therefore you can't eat in his restauraunt, and to put that in the Judaism article. There is already a part in the article (the 4th category) which says that there are some individuals in chabad that hold this view, but it is obvious that everybody condems them. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would agree to have the statement that "those beliefs are against Judaism and chabad beliefs and are condemed both within and outside chabad" inserted. But to quote all those people that RK brought, would mean quoting Shulchan aruch and basic sources in Judaism including from the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, which say the same thing. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTW block

Nandesuka, POTW was apologizing (in the next edit summary) and reverting himself at the very moment you were blocking him, in case you want to reconsider this block. Best, Bishonen | talk 12:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot page

Sir: I am a very experienced curator of three bigfoot museums (brick and mortar) and I am trying to improve the Bigfoot page, based on state of the art info. Will you please work with me, Martial Law, DanielCD and Zagalejo to make this a serious page?

Please reply my page.

beckjordBeckjord 20:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus

I thought you might want to know User:Theodore7 changed the name of your message [2]. 202.156.6.54 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey, bout that article

someone else on my account. thanks! Aeryka 04:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

chabad

Nandesuka, It is not personal interpretation, rather it is all sourced as I have shown by at least 2 books Pavzener, Avraham. Al HaTzadikim (Hebrew). Kfar Chabad. 1991 and Frumer, Assaf. Kol Hanikra Bishmi (Hebrew). Additionally the sources that RK is bringing is not relevant to what he is trying to prove as I explained in the talk page of chabad. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, See my argument in the talk page of chabad in the section that says "Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger" based on the section in the talk page of chabad with name of "condemning the belief that the Rebbe is G-d from chabad". Also regarding the paragraph "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" See my coment in the section in the talk page of chabad with the name ""Eliezer's Version of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers"". --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which section are you referring to? If you are referring to the paragraph of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers", how do you answer my objections to RK's version? And if you are referring to the "Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger", True, they are relevant, verifiable, validly sourced statements, HOWEVER this is in the controversy section of the chabad article, implying that there is this belief that chabad has and these people are against it. The truth is however that you have other Jews outside chabad that also hold heretical views, and these rabbis condemm those people as well, as does chabad. My point being, by leaving out the condemenations from chabad, you are implying that chabad endorses this view which they clearly do not. So we are left with 2 options to either quote every single well sourced, verifiable, and relevant condomenation of those that hold these views, which even according to Berger is just a few people, (I'm sure the percentage of Jews outside of chabad that hold heretical views is just as high if not higher), and quoting all those sources including the chabad sources and Shulchan Aruch which must be quoted because it is a greater source than the later Rabbis, would amount to most of the article condemming the beliefs of a few people that hold the belief. The second option is not to detail the sentences and details of each condemation, but rather to have a sentence that states that "However this view runs contrary to Judaism and has been condemed both within chabad (See Bistritzky and Ashkenazi) and outside chabad (See Feldman and Keller)." --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie at work

I have resubmitted the entry for Craik Sustainable Living Project as a temporary subpage. The original article was flagged for possible copyright violation for the section on "Community Action". I have corrected this, and hope things will be cleared up asap. I am new to this, so I hope I am following the correct protocols. Delzen 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you haven't responded to this? The user has asked for feedback at the Help desk. If you get a chance, can you leave a note on the user's talk page? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although this is getting buried, and I'm only a newbie working on small articles, I'm still here, and hoping to find out what else I need to do to contribute effectively (ie. get my CSLP article unblocked). Thanks for the support of those who have advised me, and improved the page as well. --Delzen 01:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on Delzen's talk page about this and hope to get this resolved as soon as possible — the article's been listed on WP:CP for eight days now. Let me know if there's anything I need to take into consideration before I move the temp page to the main page. Cheers, H e rmione1980 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'm simply buried with work. I've no objection to moving that stuff to the main page. I'll leave a message for Delzen. Nandesuka 02:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have finished deleting, moving, and merging talk page histories. I had to actually go and look up how to merge page histories, how dare you make me have to do all that?! :-P Anyway, I think it's all taken care of now. Wait, I haven't deleted the listing off of WP:CP yet. Must go do that. You're welcome, now take three minutes off from work and relax. Cheers, H e rmione1980 03:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks all. What do you do in lieu of buying a round of drinks around here? (Or at least in place of a slap on the back?)--Delzen 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go. Cheers! --Delzen 00:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters

The links are being reinserted, but on a more selective basis. I am reverting them and putting messages on the Talk pages. I don't discount the possibility of relevance, but there is nothing to persuade me that this site is an authority. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas

I think we could work out something - I see that it is ambiguous - I just didn't take it that way at first - which is odd, since I believe Christ was born in April. Anyway, if I am to assume good faith, I can't work on the FARC objections. I'm washing my hands (a little irony there) of the whole Christmas article. Trödeltalk 13:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explain please

You've removed the addition to circumcision. What'd be the reason for this? Its not NPOV, the statement is in the right place and there's no "emotional language".Dabljuh 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism

Why did you unprotect Veganism? It's under severe attack. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's been hitting it with several different anon accounts. Check out the history of my Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RefBot

The article's style already uses WP:FN. (SEWilco 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

linking dates

Dates are linked in most cases ONLY for preferences to work. The rule about only the first does NOT apply. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christmas#Snipping_extraneous_links --JimWae 00:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you side with the style guide, you side with linking dates so that preferences will work. Having mixed date format in an article is every bit as ugly as having a date linked a few "extra" times. Did you read the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christmas#Snipping_extraneous_links - which is where this discussion should continue--JimWae 00:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christmas#Snipping_extraneous_links --JimWae 01:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please either retore the date formatting or at least let me know that you will not revert me again if I do it --JimWae 01:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chooserr's block

Hi Nandesuka, thanks for the note.

I'm pretty well aware of Chooserr's presence at Wikipedia. I've been watching him for some time, and was aware of... some of those blocks. Having watched him pretty closely, I can honestly say that he's been improving, and I think he has the potential to be a good Wikipedian. He doesn't quite understand the way Wikipedia works, but I wouldn't call his action trolling. I think he has good faith, but is rather naive in some ways. I believe him that he doesn't understand what was offensive about his comment, but I also agree that it was an unacceptable comment. I'm more interested in helping Chooserr figure out the ropes than in getting rid of him...

I'll talk with him, and we'll see how it goes. (It won't be this evening - maybe tomorrow.) If he shows that he understands what he said wrong, and is willing to apologize for his comment, I'll consider reducing his block. Chooserr's been out of line, repeatedly, but he's also been at the receiving end of some pretty serious browbeating, and I would say the admins have come down more heavily on him than on those who've insulted him. I certainly welcome any further input you have on the matter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with GTBacchus, especially about the browbeating that Chooserr has received. I'm not keen on implementing punitive blocks, but I will point out that nobody seems to have thought it was necessary to block people who were following him around Wikipedia, calling him a "mindless troll", etc. I've already left a message on his talk page about this matter; you may have seen it.[3] I'm not going to try to overrule you, but I think you need to take into account the way he has been treated. He has been reverted with snide remarks when reverting wasn't at all necessary (and I admit it often is necessary). He has been sneered at, harassed, and followed round Wikipedia. I hope you will consider reducing this block. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol

I hereby award you the Barnstar of Good Humor for, well, having a good sense of humor! H e rmione1980 17:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up, we need more Wikipedians with a good sense of humor! H e rmione1980 17:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent conduct on Wikipedia

No doubt when you restored Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia you were aware of the fact that it's directly contrary to the neutrality policy and it currently has an overwhelming consensus to delete. In the circumstances restoration seems somewhat perverse.

However I meant to approach you about some other matters--your personal conduct on Wikipedia towards me, in particular your gross personal attacks.

On Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed decision: Well, let's be frank: if the judgment is one that expresses criticism of you, we might be told that it "doesn't belong on Wikipedia." Theoretically. [4]

And when I said that this kind of statement had no place on wikipedia you responded:

Thanks very much for illustrating my point. It is — and I am being sincere — a big help..[5]

As I've said, this is an extremely snide personal attack. Please stop being snide and defend your statements without engaging in inflammatory personal attacks of this kind.

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1 you made an edit with the summary "Toe the line, little people" in which you said:

Remember, only User:Tony Sidaway is allowed to unilaterally invent and act on criteria for speedy deletion that don't actually exist. [6]

Again you express your opinion as an inflammatory personal attack.

Earlier on the workshop of the webcomics arbitration you wrote:

I think, based on Snowspinner's comment, we can rewrite this finding of fact. Here, let me try: "Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend are consciously involved in an overt campaign to take steps that they believe will improve Wikipedia. They must be stopped. [7]

This inflammatory form of expression has no place on Wikipedia. Please stop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't see which criteria for speedy deletion you cited in any of the four times you deleted this article:

20:53, 27 December 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia" (There is no excuse to keep this project in existence. Please check the deletion debate and the neutrality policy, and do not restore.)

Could you kindly let me know which criteria you were using when you deleted those? Thanks! Nandesuka 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism (term)

Hi Nandesuka, I'm looking for an admin to close a vote about a page move. It's a bit sensitive and complicated, so I won't blame you if you'd rather not be involved. Here's the background:

Since its creation, Islamofascism has been a troubled article that has aroused strong feelings because some editors feel the term is a neologism that refers to nothing in the real world i.e. they argue that there is no such thing as Islamofascism, while other editors believe there is such a thing and that it should be written about. See the first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism where the result was keep.

Because of the strong feelings, for a time the page was a redirect to Neofascism and religion, but a few weeks ago, it was made into an article again. Because there was a lot of reverting, I moved the page to Islamofascism (term) as a compromise between the two positions i.e. to make clear that the article is about the word and not about anything the word allegedly refers to. There was no vote for the move, but we seemed to have agreement on the talk page here and a second AfD resulted in keep again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term).

Someone then started a talk-page poll to ask that the page be moved back to Islamofascism. Their argument (I believe) is that some voters said it should be called Islamofascism during the second AfD. See the poll here.

The result of the poll was 30 votes overall: four neutral, 14 in support of the move, 12 against it. Not counting the neutrals, I count that as 54 per cent in favor. Wikipedia:Requested moves says 60 per cent of more is required. However, User:Marudubshinki, an admin, moved the page to Islamofascism anyway on December 25. When I asked him about it, he seemed to agree the support votes had gained 54 per cent, but said he found the arguments for the move persuasive. He said he had no problem if I asked another admin to look at the situation. See my my discussion with him here.

If you're willing to look at it, I'd be happy to abide by whatever decision you reach, though I can't speak for anyone else: expect opposition either way. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there's no rush. And if you look at it and decide you don't want to get involved, that's okay too. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nandesuku, questions continue to be raised about this move. If you'd prefer not to take a look at it, please drop me a note. More information here and here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our agreement and our disagreement

Hi, Nandesuka. Thanks for doing the right thing regarding the Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. Tony has deleted it three more times since your last restoration, and Sean Black and I have both restored it. I'll admit I'll be happy when it's finally licitly deleted, though. I'd like to say also that I agreed with you a while back (a month, two months?) about Duncharris in the RfC.

With regard to Chooserr, I hope you don't think that I find his comment in any way acceptable. I don't think I judge it as harshly as you, though. Regardless, I'd like to ask you to keep an eye out for any taunts by Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused (talk · contribs), who was also, I presume, User:Aolanawanabe (talk · contribs). I have to cut down on my Wikipedia activity for the next few weeks, as I've been spending too much time here, and have got a bit behind in my studies, and I have told Chooserr that I would ask a few other admins to see that he's not taunted while I'm on a wiki-break. While I would have preferred a more lenient block, I do accept that you were quite within your rights, and maybe some good will come out of it. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil4Linux

Just thought you should know, Brazil4Linux has somehow managed to circumvent your one-month block, and he's back to causing trouble again. Don't know how he did it, but that's how things stand at the moment. Daniel Davis 06:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

Mistress Selina Kyle

She unilaterally, without discussion, moved the Wives of Muhammad template to Partners of Muhammad, changed the heading to Wives and Female Slaves of Muhammad, and re-arranged the names. Do you think you could put everything back as it was? Zora 11:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice to arbom

To reject until there's a problem? I reckon there's a problem now.

These are just the ones I could bother copying to your talk page, by the way.

I'd chat more, but even some of the trees are one her side, and who knows who might overhear. See ya later ~~cronie~~ um, ~~comrade~~ err, Wikipedian with whom I have no special association.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

AfD regarding Bravo Fleet

Hello Nandesuka. When you get a chance, could you please come over to the AfD for Bravo Fleet and close it. Its been going on since 21 December 2005, and it's now 31 December 2005. It didn't pass. If you look at my comment on the bottom, it had 5 Keep, 4 Delete, and 1 Abstain by the end of the period (26 December). If you count in the others, the Keep increases to 7 Keep. Thanks for your time. I appreciate your help.--Azathar 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism hate mail

Well done on your impartial second opinion. I applaud your level-headed insight.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 23:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree, but I like your idea of not biting the oldies (it's just that they taste so good!) and wish you a happy new year anyway. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil4Linux Alert

An Alert

Bet you'll never guess who this is. :) I'll get to the reason why I'm hiding behind it in a moment. I've been watching the edits, writing style and posting history of User:Dungeon_Siege (including his use of a so-called "anonymous IP" that traces right back to B4L's ISP, calling everyone vandals, etc, and I'm now thoroughly convinced that he's another sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux. Alkivar's got his page protected (because B4L vandalized it a while back repeatedly), so I'll have to notify him about it via my regular account. Can we get someone who can do user traces to track this latest one back to B4L? I think this might be the cataylst for a Permablock. I'm sure he's tracking the Doom127 contributions, that's why I've created this Sock. I'll put this message on everyone's page so you guys are made aware of it, and you can put your responses here. Doom127sSecretSockPuppet 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

IRC again

Hey, would you get on IRC if you have a moment? I'm on #wikipedia-en-vandalism again. Cheers, H e rmione1980 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail...by the way, have you thought about archiving this page? It's getting rather long. :-) H e rmione1980 02:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]