User talk:Nandesuka/Archive 4

The soapbox comment was unnecessary. (re: Vulva discussion) Artofthehidden 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not upset about my edit on your User page. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to your note on Vandalism. I only noticed you because you edited my user page to fix the User box. Have a great day! MamaGeek Joy 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutilation and so on

As it seems the concerned edtiors of the various articles Mutilation and Circumcision are unable to come to a consensus perhaps a request for comment or moderation is appropriate? Tomyumgoong 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Either or both is fine with me. Nandesuka 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Please see my comments on this re Template:User Hell, and reconsider if you think a DRV is needed for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my "reason for the undelete" was that I disagree that this falls under T1, not just that a prior deletion turned in a keep result. Had you not already listed it on DRV, I would have suggested bringing it back to tfd. In any case the drv may result in a consensus to delete, and following consensus is the only way to keep this project in one piece. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DU

The chemistry of normal natural uranium is the same as both enriched uranium and DU. The isotopic nature of the uranium has next to no effect on the chemistry. So why if the paper was about normal U is it not OK to use it in a DU page ?Cadmium 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the price quoted in the ORNL paper [1] doesn't strike one as outrageously expensive. DU sells at USD 20/kg, to put it into perspective, copper sells at about half that. Dr Zak 21:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship renewal discussion

Is now at Wikipedia talk:Adminship renewal, due to typo on my part. My apologies if it confused you. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the 2005 2006 USA Israel threats to Iran article

I think that's what it was called. I understand you deleted it. Was this as a result of the Articles for Deletion? If so, would you kindly tell where the arhived article and the results of the poll are stored. Thank you very much. Wallie 14:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is here. Kind regards, Nandesuka 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for your prompt reply. Wallie 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question (sorry). Are we allowed to start up another (new) article on the same topic, with some of the details from the old article. The reason is that some of the issues in the topic are important, both from a current and historical perspective. Note that the new article would try to be NPOV, ie, a general converage of the situation, not targeting specific countries, and giving all sides of the story. Thank you again. Wallie 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will have a look a the debate again. Thank you very much for your advice. Wallie 15:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have chance to read that deleted article. I looked at the vote for deletion [2]. Among 49, only 26 users have voted to delete it (a very slim majority). The voting has ended today (May 14). If you count votes until May 13, the votes for deletion are 16 (out of 38 votes) which is not a majority. For this kind of controversial topics (when there is no clear consensus), shouldn't you extend the voting time? Bidabadi 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for deciding to delete an article. It is a straight majority after a certain time? Does Strong Keep get move votes than Keep. Are the arguments taken into consderation? Is it an automatic process, or does an admin think "hmmm, looks close, I'll toss a coin?". Thanks. Wallie 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram Stark

I only changed it back because the ban timer was set at 6 months. Sorry. --Sunfazer | Talk 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was when I looked in the block log. --Sunfazer | Talk 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya -- what happened here was that User:Freakofnurture intended to reset the de jure 6 month ban, did not notice that a de facto indefinite ban had been imposed. So the edit was, technically, correct. I'm curious how Sunfazer noticed the block change. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropist

why did you delete the Misanthropist User Template ? Fallen Angel ^talk 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD#Templates. Nandesuka 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.25.132.168

I am not a sock puppet to WoW so please unblock me.. May you please unblock me.. I am not a sock puppet to WoW. I don't even know what that is! 66.25.132.168 is a school IP! There are many students that use this site. And if the IP is blocked indefently, That means no one can contribute to Wikipedia! Please unblock me.

nathan's talk

when did he give you permission to do this [3]? I know him and I am almost 100% sure he would not have given you permission to do so. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm on Wikibreak so I don't care what you do to this page." Nandesuka 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is more of a "I don't give a fuck anymore" message than a "You can change this if you want to". I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thank you for clarifying. Nandesuka 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inches or Centimeters

((1) you're wrong, (2) there are already enough images.)

1. I am including an image of the actual scale used in the photo. You can see it next to the reverse side showing the cm scale (1 inch=2.54cm=25.4mm). Hopefully this satisfies you that the scale is in inches as the caption says.

2. I added the image as I thought it was educational. There are two images on the page which seems odd given there is such diversity in erections. I thought having an image of one with a greater angle and some curvature would be informative to readers.

Biggishben 08:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming needed

Have you ever looked at the Internet phenomenon article? It begins with "It is nearly impossible to accurately measure the depth of a phenomenon's popularity..." - brenneman ^{L} 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

It's not a personal attack, just an observation. I said "might" instead of "should." Fear of hell depends on your religious beliefs and your (you too) own inner sense of right and wrong. Regardless, we are all responsible (liable) for the consiquences of our actions.TipPt 14:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision comments

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Al 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I disagree with your belief that I was incivil, but I will certainly take your words under advisement. Nandesuka 11:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --Wisd e n17 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

PLEASE be more careful when looking for copyvios. Other sites copy us too. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 May 20/Articles. --mav 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation News

I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Wikipedia for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. --Wisd e n17 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrators open to recall

SPAM WARNING - quasi form letter follows! (#4)
I'm attempting to open the biggest can of worms ever. You're a nice balance between "hard arse" and "man of the people." So I'd like to hear your thoughts on the category I've just created.
brenneman ^{L} 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F1 portal featured article

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Beat ya to the punch! :-) Is this one good? --D-Day was here ^{(Talk to me, baby)} 15:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any better? --D -Day ^{on WHEELS!!!} 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Nandesuka, and thank you for your positive comments in my request for adminship! (I got the buttons!!) With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again and I hope to live up to the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

RE: "wanking," etc.

Hi. Please ensure that personal attacks directed against me are limited to IRC or anywhere else outside the wiki. Thank you in advance. El_C 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted that comment as a description of #wikipedia in general rather than of you or any other individual. -Splash^talk 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just said pretty much the same thing on El C's talk page. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, I misread that and I offer my sincere apologies. El_C 02:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even speaking of #wikipedia. That's pretty much my impression of IRC as a whole. It wasn't intended as a direct personal attack on any one person, but as a general critique (or, if you will, insult) of the medium. Nandesuka 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit on edge. Thanks for understanding. Regards, El_C 03:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned over your censoring Cuzandor's remarks

I'm not defending him, he was way out of line. But if you completely remove any sign that he made the remarks, people might not realize what sort of person they are dealing with when they talk to him. (Of course, the edit history is still there, but it's not as immediately obvious.) I've always felt that it's best to let a fool dig his own grave with his mouth. By cleaning up after Cuzandor, you're just making it easier for him to avoid the consequences of his actions. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, he replaced Cuz's unthinking insensitivity with an allegation of bigotry. This is not an improvement. It's hardly even civil. Al 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly comfortable describing someone who talks about "African savages" as a bigot. If you're not, then that's your problem. Nandesuka 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I saw it, he was describing circumcision as savagery. Now, I wouldn't go that far, but I would also assume good faith, unlike you. Al 03:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "And how the savages in africa or australia or whatever do it too" is perfectly clear in its intent, and that you wish to make excuses for such bigotry is shameful. Nandesuka 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I assume good faith, which is what makes me such a good person. When given a chance, Cuz changed "savages" to "circumcisers", just as I expected. Speaking of expectations, your claims about my support for bigotry are as false as they are uncivil. But, of course, I don't expect you to admit this, much less apologize. Fortunately, I'm a good person, so I'll forgive you in advance. Al 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to protest that supporting (and re-adding) the phrase "how the savages in africa or australia or whatever" doesn't constitute support for bigotry as much as you like. I'm confident that all will see that you protest too much. Nandesuka 04:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to Alienus or to me? The lack of nesting to these remarks makes them a little hard to follow. Kasreyn 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Nesting fixed. Thanks. :-) Nandesuka 11:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know savage was an offensive word Cuzandor 01:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connotations often don't translate well. This is why we assume good faith. Al 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episiotomy

Better sources? At least here in Brazil they do episidotomies just like they do circumcisions in USA Check this:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7343/945

and this:

http://www.gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Tragedy_Routine_Episiotomy.htm

Cuzandor 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: User talk:Dabljuh

Sir? I confess that I'm confused... did I do something which you think is wrong? Can I help rectify it? Snoutwood (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... no worries. Yeah, I don't really get where he's coming from, myself. Or Alienus. I'd like to try and explain myself to help them out, but I don't understand them so I'm having some trouble. I'll think of something, though... or at least I'll try. :) Snoutwood (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your comments over there. Never mind, I don't think there's much I can do, unfortunately. *sigh* Snoutwood (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acuccowhatever

You are wrong. A Google search indicates the word is in very much and in fact widely used, and in the proper manner (as a synonym for the state of circumcision, although there is the odd -philia confusion). So ridiculous made-up word that nobody actually uses. is provably and verifiably false. Matter of fact is that for some reason that I do not really understand you do object to the addition of this word. Since you have repeatedly shown that you do not act in good faith, but conciously try to provoke people into breaking WP:CIV and WP:3RR as well as other rules, I must assume you, Nandesuka do this purely to annoy me and Alienus (who you, I believe, percieve as POV-Enemies?). This would constitute vandalism (As in: "Any change in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the Encyclopedia") and wikistalking. So I must ask you to please cease your vandalism / stalking, Nandesuka. It may get you banned if you continue. Dabljuh 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. I think the google search is pretty good evidence that no one actually uses the word. Nandesuka 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now vandalised my user page. I must again request that you cease your abuse, and be more careful. If you continue your behaviour, you will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Dabljuh 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, removing personal attacks -- such as the one you were recently blocked for, which you reference above -- is not considered vandalism. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should have been a block for that attack (indeed, that was my first instinct), but seeing as I missed it by a day I'm not going to do anything about it apart from bringing it up on his talk page, as the situation does not seem to have continued. Let me know if it picks up again in the future and I will happily look into the situation.

As an aside, I disagree with your removing that edit from the Circumcision talk page and from Dabljuh's user page, not because it's an attack, but because it's an attack against you. In the future, I'd recommend bringing the situation to WP:AN or the attention of another administrator such as myself, as I believe it's a bad idea to remove those sorts of things yourself. I don't necessarily disagree with your actions, but I think you'd be better off having a second party taking care of the situation rather than doing it yourself. Best, Snoutwood (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you violated 3RR. I wouldn't have reported you without giving you a chance to revert, anyhow, but we're still left with the question of why you're edit-warring to remove what is, at worst, an innocuous entry. What's so horrible about a neutral, boring synonym that makes it worth fighting over? Al 02:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have this thing against nonexistent words. What's your excuse?

Incidentally, I don't think I actually violated 3RR -- one of the edits I was counting was moving your addition of "male genital mutilation" to another place in the introduction that made more sense. But, hey, better safe than sorry. Edit warring is always a bad thing, but it takes two to tango. So, seriously: why are you adding a word that is not used in conversation, is not used in any scientific literature, is not used in any non-scientific literature, and as near as anyone can tell has an existence entirely within the rarified air of "internet dictionaries of user-contributed sex terms?" Nandesuka 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen

Please see my comments on User:Azate's talk page. Please know that both he and I agree that the tag is needed. Netscott 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I enquire as to whether or not you have fully apprised yourself of the actual history of that article's archived talk pages? Resid Gulerdem and his associated sockpuppets and anon-IPs have gone to long lengths over long periods of time to "own" that article. While I understand your concerns unfortunately I fear that you are editing from a less than fully informed position relative to the article being tagged or not. Netscott 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka! Don't remove the POV tag against my very detailled objections. I'm not an electronic library working 24 hours a day on WP. I'd have to do some work on this, re-reading books and articles and identifying good English language sources. 30 seconds is not quite enough for me for me to improve the article. All I'm willing and able to do at the moment is point out why the article seriously needs a POV tag. I did so in considerable detail. Don't expect me to come up overnight with everything that the article needs. Azate 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I expect is for you to not tendentiously edit war over the POV tag. Nandesuka 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't. I follow proper procedure (From Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup): "Guidelines for cleanup - 1. If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag on so it can be cleaned up in the future. 2. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)". This tells me two things: 1. You shouldn't remove the NPOV tag. 2. I "can just put it back". No edit war here. Azate 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* Well, I don't appear to have done much good there. I might be missing something, but it all seemed clear to me: If someone doesn't want to edit an article, don't. If someone does want to do something for an article, what difference does a having a tag make? Why people argue over the symptom rather than the disease is beyond me. Anyway, I'll put this article on my "slow cleanup" list so it doesn't totally become an orphan. Sorry I wasn't more help. - brenneman ^{L} 02:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative notice board

Curious, why did you delete it? Morton devonshire 01:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page's history and content both demonstrated that it was organized explicitly to push specific political positions, contravening WP:NPOV, which is a core policy here. Nandesuka 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Know Better

Various and sundry persistent trolling from Alienus has been moved to User_talk:Nandesuka/Trolling_from_Alienus. Anyone interested in it may find it there. Nandesuka 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Regarding this edit: [4], specifically Your failure to describe the facts accurately in this case is, unfortunately, not terribly surprising.; Although I do not feel this is a blatant personal attack, please be careful to avoid any comments which could be interperated as a personal attack. Paul Cyr 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct

WHY DON'T YOU STOP STALKING ME! LEAVE MY HARMLESS AND SOURCED EDITS ALONE. - max rspct leave a message 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note:

   * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Nandesuka 14:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Brian G. Crawford

See here [5], not sure what's going on but since you already blocked him for one disturbing diff, thought I'd see what you thought about the other one. Since it's his first offense apparently, I dunno, the 72h might be enough. Just thought you might want to see that, if you hadn't already. Thanks. --W.marsh 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page

Can you please put a notice on my user talk page that it is protected and that people should not post on it, especially not admins that non-admins cannot answer to. I'm not going to accept the protection any time soon, so in the mean time I don't want it to be a soapbox for admins! --Rdos 18:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Alienus

Hi Nandesuka, thanks for the note. I had seen your reply on Al's talk page, but in all honesty I am tired of this issue and don't think it should continue. However, I will reply to your comments, seeing as how you took the time to post on my talk page.

The part that doesn't make sense is the argument that an admin must recuse himself from taking an administrative action against an editor simply because he has blocked that editor.

This is not about Tony simply blocking Alienus. Tony did not simply block Alienus. He blocked him three times in a row, for reasons that were each time disputed. Twice Al was unblocked, because the reasons for the block were not substantial enough, in the eyes of certain admins. The other time, the block was only for 3 hours, a mere formality, which seemed to be Tony's way of telling Al "I'm watching your every move; I have blocking powers and I'm not afraid to use them". Beyond that was the many, many notes the Tony left for Al on Al's talk page, repeating himself over and over, in a way that demonstrated his unwillingness to listen to what others were saying, his unwillingness to try to work things out. This simply continued to escalate, and even now, Tony has not stopped with the unhelpful comments. This is why I, and others, believe that it is completely reasonable to ask Tony to step away, because the two of them have been going at it for long enough, and there needs to be some room to breathe, for both of them. To claim that this is only about the blocking that took place demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue at large.

If you would look back to comments left on 19 July, you will see that Alienus politely asked Tony to drop the matter so that they could both get on with their lives. Tony didn't drop it, and Al once again politely asked him to back off. A bit later that day, Tony came back with another issue, that of buddies, with which he then proceded to pester Al again and again, for no apparent reason. The attempts of some of us to find the humor in this topic were met with even more pestering, and a bit of repetition, from Tony. The next day came quite a few posts from Tony about edit warring. Now, whether or not Al was edit warring is not the issue here, but the fact that Tony felt that he had to pound this in again and again, and that he appeared to be baiting Al, just waiting for him to loose his composure. I could go on... but I think the talk page speaks for itself.

If Alienus thinks that Tony has taken inappropriate action, then he should use the dispute resolution process to solve the problem. Until and unless he does that, the argument that Tony has to ignore Al's behavior should be taken as seriously as the claim that the other 7 or so admins who blocked him were all corrupt and/or incompetent

And I urge him to take this matter through a dispute resolution process. However, I completely disagree with the last part here: this has nothing to do with the other admins who have blocked Alienus. This is about a conflict between Al and Tony that has escalated. Personally, I don't know the history behind the previous blocks, so I can't speak for or against their validity. But I think that claiming that Al's attitude toward Tony right now reflects on the other blocking admins is just blowing this out of proportion, as they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

To me, this seems to be a case of a trigger-happy admin who doesn't know when to quit. It is a good policy that admins not block users with whom they are in article-related disputes; however, I think that it would also be wise to not allow the same admin to repeatedly block a particular editor. This brings up a whole new category of warring, and I don't think we really want to go there.

I hope I have addressed all of the pertinent issues. I don't expect you to agree with any of my points here, but I do hope that you will come to see this issue as more complex than a simple block. Thank you, roma rin [talk ] 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand your points, but like I said, I know nothing about the histories involved in the previous blocks, so i can't speak to them. I realize that Al's most recent unblock was conditional, but I also would like to point out that they were able to reach a compromise that they both agreed with, and this reflects very well on both Al and Sasquatch. This in itself does not necessarily reflect poorly on Tony, but the fact that he then came in and made some more unhelpful comments does, in my opinion, demonstrate his unwillingness to let it go peacefully, as everyone else seems prepared to do.

I also would hope that the opinions of administrators are not the only important opinions around. It may be true that more admins agreed with the most recent blocks than did not, but several regular editors found them inapropriate and said so, even a couple who have not had a good history with Alienus. I know the rest of us don't have special powers like you and Tony, but we do have valid opinions that should be taken into consideration. Thanks, roma rin [talk ] 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad. In this light of agreement, then, I suggest that enough electronic blood has been spilled over this topic already, and that we should leave it at that. roma rin [talk ] 19:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, you extended the olive branch and I accepted it. As part of this, I agreed not to automatically revert the comments you make on my talk page. Unfortunately, your recent actions have made your presence once again unwelcome. In the end, it's all up to you: if you want to hold a grudge and speak against me everytime the excuse comes up, you can't expect me to take your peace offering seriously. If you post on my talk page again, expect to be reverted. Al 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypersensitivity really isn't my problem. Nandesuka 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is. Enough said. Al 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- you've said enough. If you believe I have behaved inappropritaely, then stop handwaving and do something appropriate about it rather than engaging in tendentious behavior. Since you are apparently incapable or unwilling to distinguish between civilized discourse and simple vandalism, as your continued inappropriate use of popups to rollback comments indicates, I will assume that if you leave a message on my talk page, you are trolling. Until, of course, you care to indicate that you're ready to behave like an adult. Everyone can change. I hope that you do. Nandesuka 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem?

What on earth are you deleting tons of external links to various versions of online texts? Who are you to decide what is the best version? Some versions are good for online reading, some are good for downloading to other readers, some are good for searching purposes. Some are different translations, some contain pictures, etc.. there is no reason to delete these links - what an incredible waste. -- Stbalbach 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who am I? Easy question: I'm an editor. Why am I deleting those links? Because most of them are spam links that duplicate perfectly good Gutenberg links. Wikipedia, you may have heard. is not google. Nandesuka 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenberg is not always the best source - for one, many editions include annotations that the Gutenberg does not. For another they include alternative translations. Some also include markups that make it easier to read online. -- Stbalbach 04:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But the particular source I was removing was a site who provided nothing more than Gutenberg, other than google links. It had clearly been deliberately spammed all over Wikipedia solely for the purpose of ad revenue. If I inadvertently removed a good source while exterminating the spam, I apologize. Nandesuka 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note

Can you add two cents to a discussion with a user who keeps re-adding the links that three other people have taken out? It's a slow-motion thing over simply months, but he's very persistant. - brenneman ^{L} 11:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus history

I'm compiling a history of Alienus' problematic interactions with other editors, primarily administrators, and I've reached March 16. After that there's a big gap in my knowledge because he dropped off my radar until June, so anything you could add would be most welcome:

User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus

--Tony Sidaway 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus arbitration

See this application. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I believe that an RfAr would be premature at this time and would not be productive. Therefore I am asking that you allow the pending RfC to continue. Al 08:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Evidence and proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Workshop. Fred Bauder 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.[reply]

WP:External links

While cleaning some links from Nude beach, the attention of User:JJay was attracted to a straght-forward cleanup up the guideline I had done. He did a full reversion, and now I feel that he's only interested in a slagginG match on the talk page, complete with pointless passive agressive changes to section headers [6] [7]. It's possible that I'm not being 100% helpful myself, so could you review the changes I made to WP:EL as well as the discussion on the talk page and tell me if I'm out of line? - brenneman ^{L} 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary here is quite enlightening [8]. It expresses my exact thoughts on the demotion of the word "review" from the first section of the style guide. I missed the part where you achieved consensus for the removal of the word, or "trivia" as you like to call it, from its position of the last seven months or so (i.e. since 2005). Since based on the message above, it is clear that your style guide comments and reversions reflect more a desire to edit war on behalf of another user than to contribute to improving the page, I'll point out before I go that you are now at 3 reversions. --JJay 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you focus on the content in question, rather than on the people making the edits. This will help you avoid intentionally or unintentionally saying incivil things. Nandesuka 02:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have extensively focused on the content of the style guide through long comments that have received no answer or flippant responses from you such as: A "unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it is of high quality" refers to a unique resource beyond what the article would have once it is of high quality. [9] I have further been forced to revert massive changes in the meaning of the style guide that have been misleadingly described as corrections to sloppy editing. This has all been patiently explained with diffs on the talk page. I don't care who edits the encyclopedia. I do care that style guides, guideline or policy are not changed arbitrarily to suit the whims of individual editors. You have shown a great willingness to edit war, but have made little real effort to participate sincerely. I would therefore suggest that you focus more on the content and less on insulting joke responses such as the one above. --JJay 02:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay, you have suggested that you believe the phrase "unique resource" could be reasonably interpreted as "every page on the internet." If we're going to start cataloguing "insulting joke responses" you might start there. Nandesuka 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested that it might be interpreted that way because of its vagueness. I have asked repeatedly for clarification. I asked for your definition and you responded with the diff above. There have been no "insulting joke responses" from me. There has been an enormous refusal from you and user:Aaron Brenneman to engage in serious discussion and build any consensus for effecting changes in style guide meaning. --JJay 03:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What both Aaron and I have been trying to explain to you — evidently without success — is that a well-written guideline is targeted at reasonable editors. No reasonable editor can or will interpret "unique resource" as "every page on the internet." A guideline that is written to soothe the troubled minds of unreasonable editors is one that is more difficult for reasonable editors to use. What I view as problematic in your edits is that you seem to be trying to answer the question "How might an unreasonable editor interpret this standard?" That is not an acceptable way to write policy. We already have ways to deal with unreasonable editors: we welcome, we explain, we discuss, and if all else fails we use dispute resolution. What we do not do is draft muddled, unclear, overly-verbose policies to anticipate their every (unreasonable) objection. Nandesuka 03:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AS

When you get a chance, can you have another look at the AS article? They've been hard at work, and it has really undergone a major revamping, including deletion of massive amounts of speculation, referencing, copyediting, and a major reorganization of the article contents. Sandy 04:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks! Nandesuka 02:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Asperger Syndrome

Now I have to wonder why you would jump on me over the Asperger's talk and yet say nothing about the arrogant, autocratic, manipulative and downright abusive behaviors of Sandy?

That doesn't seem fair or right.

Admin or not, nobody should be presuming the degree of personal authority and control over any article that Sandyhas. --Zeraeph 23:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you actually read the discussions on the talk page you will discover that Sandy is not being "civil" by any standards you care to name.

But if you do not agree I am happy to take this RFA --Zeraeph 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, it is my understanding from WP:Vandalism that certain messages and templates should not be removed from talk pages. If this is correct, can you please have a look at this? I'm concerned that the trend will continue. Thanks, Sandy 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I hear my name ? :-)

Just to let you know that AS has moved to FARC. [10]

Sandy 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong way elections

dear Nandesuka. I see you deleted my article "wrong way elections" (without notifying me of course, common courtesy being beyond wikipedia's ken apparently).

Can you send me via email, the most recent version of the thing you deleted? Allegedly Wikipedia still has it, since they have an "undeletion policy" which however, I am unable to penetrate the mysteries of.

Warren D Smith: wds at math.temple.edu

Thanks a bunch.

PS. You made the wrong decision too. My rough estimation is this deletion decision cost, in expectation, 1000 lives; although I might be off by a factor of 100, I doubt I am off by more. I hope you employed approprate gravity in making the decision, therefore. (As opposed to the bulk of my critics, who gave no explicit objections whatever... and regard any attempted measurement of the importance of the article, such as "1000 lives" as quote "arrogant"... but unfortunately estimates of this sort are well known in the voting methods field... which was difficult for my critics to tell, since, as far as I could tell, none of them knew anything about voting... which in no way prevented them from somehow judging that the article was "original research".. although none of them were capable of telling what original research in this area even is... but that was ok since they did not try... and wikipedia nowhere defines what it is anyhow... far as I can see)

Bye.

Warren,

If you wish to post material that does not conform with Wikipedia's content policies, such as no original research, then I encourage you to get your own web site. Good day. Nandesuka 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanton reverts without cause or merit

It has come to my attention that since you got wind of the Derek Smart page, all you've done is made wanton edits and reverts. Your blatantly ridiculous edit of this morning was uncalled for, against Wiki policy and clearly without merit. An admin should be unbiased and not be swayed by any consensus displayed by a particularly opposing parties. I spent a considerable amount of time this morning doing lengthy research on Derek Smart and posted my findings in order to alleviate the wanton revert war that has been going on between his supporters and detractors alike and which started on the Usenet over a decade ago. Without reading or vetting the material, you reverted it to an edit (which was erroneous and editorial) made by an anon member. At some point, this Derek Smart page is going to end up in arbitration and if you continue, you are not only going to be in the middle of it, but you are also likely to lose (by not being voted again) your admin rights which you seem to be abusing with wanton disregard for Wiki policies. See my talk please. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to this revert, [11], which would be where I reverted your edit where you put this absolutely unacceptable text in a Wikipedia article:

A collection of articles by an alleged Smart net stalker. Particularly unflattering, unsubstantiated and potentially libelous and defamatory materials] See Talk!

There is so much wrong with your edits that I don't know where to begin. But I'll try. First off, linking an article to a talk page is bad form. Second, inserting your own personal opinion into an article is original research. If you wish to avoid having your edits reverted, then please improve the quality of your work, because this particular edit is nowhere near Wikipedia standards. Nandesuka 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I can accept the 'personal opinion' aspect, but by the same token, you are clearly doing whole reverts, instead of editing out conflicting materials. That is also poor form. All I'm trying to do is keep this page NPOV while others are simply trying to do the same thing they have been doing on the Usenet for many years. That being, character assassinating Smart.

I also didn't realize the link to a talk page was considered bad form. Nevertheless, it is not against Wiki guidelines. If it is, please point me to the Wiki rules where it is cited as being unacceptable.

If you wanted to be neutral admin, you would not make whole reverts because that too is considered bad form and just plain lazy. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Do you know what Original Research is and means? I don't think so. Either that or you're misusing the terminology. My edit of a few days ago on the Derek Smart page was not original research (despite the error in my comments and which I couldn't change without being 3RR trapped). All I did was posted factual date from reliable sources. Yet, you saw it fit to do a whole revert. Then when I put it back in, I got trapped in the 3RR rule which I'm sure you and your friends were quite happy to report and get me banned for 24hrs.

This - again - is one of the reasons why Wiki is an unmitigated failure and seemingly nothing more than a glorified chat room / forum when heated items are the issue at hand. NONE of you folks have the skills nor the training to negotiate - nor understand fully - the rules of the Wiki. Thats what happens when a bunch of unprofessional and 'common' folk are put in positions of authority and to vet stuff that they simply have no knowledge of. A system like that has proven time and time again to be a social failure.

The answer to your question is "Yes, I know what original research is and means." You, however, seem to have not read WP:NOR, which spells out in exactly detail exactly what original research is and means, in the context of Wikipedia. As for your personal feelings regarding whether Wikipedia is a success or failure, if you do not like the rules under which Wikipedia operates, then I encourage you to either try to change them through discussion on the appropriate policy pages, or start a blog where you will be able to set your own rules. Good day. Nandesuka 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on coffee

A full refutation of the source was given on the talk page before I saw your second revert. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a refutation of the source on the talk page. I see you saying that you personally believe the authors were making the claim up. Are you a reliable, published source? Nandesuka 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hi there, can I solicit your opinion on "original research"?

In the article on Gill Langley, an animal rights campaigner, a sentence used to say "Described as 'not what some would regard as a typical animal rights campaigner,' Langley is herself a former animal researcher who decided she could not justify the experiments her employment required her to conduct."

My reasoning is that this invites the reader to make inferences about "typical animal rights campaigners", SV's reasoning is that I am the one making the original research, drawing inferences. The train wreck is on the article talk page.

Thanks. Dr Zak 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard article.

Since you were the one who added the cleanup tag, I figured I might as well mention this over here, since I think we need a third opinion. Apologies about spamming your talk page.

User:Jc37 has done some good work trying to cleanup the Wizard article. I noticed when he moved some items from the Wizard article over to Wizard (disambiguation), which I watch. That said, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between us on where the Wizard article should go. As a rough summary... he has tried to move the article away from "la la magic la," which I heartily approve of. That said, he seems to be trying to remove almost all reference to magic inside the article. My understanding is that historically, wizards were associated with any unusual knowledge or skill (both magical and mundane); furthermore, "wizard" (unadorned by modifier such as "computer") is modernly associated with straight-up magic use. While I appreciate trying to emphasize that wizards weren't just magic, he seems to be implying that they were never magic (and if they were, should be moved to the Magician article or the like).

There are some further debates over style which are probably not as important; I feel that my writing of the introduction is considerably better than Jc's current one.

If you have time, your input would be appreciated. SnowFire 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Encyclopedia Dramatiac talk pages

I think the talk pages should stay. Hardvice 06:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Stanfordandson 08:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Nandesuka 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Stanfordandson 08:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I gave my reasons in the close, but I'll keep an eye on the DRV. Nandesuka 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nandesuka, could you salt this spelling as well? Thanks. (→Netscott) 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the reminder. Nandesuka 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nandesuka, one last one. :-) (→Netscott) 14:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to salt the page, please make sure it's at the correct spelling, and please make sure the template points to the correct AfD debate. thx. SchmuckyTheCat 14:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history or recreation at different spellings it's good that they are all being deleted and salted.

Nandesuka, your handling of this whole affair is commendable and much appreciated. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Nandesuka. Sorry to bother you once more and I'm not sure if it matters but three hours after the close of ED's AfD someone decided to begin recreation of the article in Wikipedia namespace. I've tagged with {{db-repost}}. Maybe you could take a peek at it and either concur with the db or if not remove the tag. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos; I noticed the drama on DRV and thought your closing explanation here was a particularly good one. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For doing a great job sorting through that AfD

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a very fine choice on the Afd of ED. It must not have been eay. Great Job Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the awarding of this barnstar. (→Netscott) 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding your closing of the AfD for Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

Just a question/comment for you, and please don't think I am trying to get you to reverse your decision, but it appears that you closed the AfD a bit early. The original reason was stated at 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC), and you closed it at 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC). Accoridng to Deletion lag times, the wait should be 5 days after a rough consensus. You closed it 4 days, 4 hours and 2 minutes into the AfD. I don't know if you realized it or not, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. I respect you as a fellow editor and as a SysOp, which is why I am coming to you first before I bring this up in the Deletion Review of the ED article. Thanks for your time.--Azathar 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be able to participate in the Ed DR, but I would also like to give you a chance to reply to what I wrote above. I'm going to wait 24 hours from my original comment before I write up my comment in the ED Dr, to give you time to respond to my concern if you want too. Thanks for your time.--Azathar 03:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said everything I care to say in the close. Please go ahead and participate however you wish. Regards, Nandesuka 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the response.--Azathar 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You rat bastard

I was so hanging out to close this. I have not yet recovered from my embarassment for closing the Everywhere Girl early, though.
brenneman ^{L} 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read wiki policies

nandeska, you'll have to read wiki policies. i have committed no vandalism. maybe consider taking some time to cool off and read how wiki works. thanks!

Justforasecond 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwanzaa

Please take a look - also at talk. thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Good job on the block. Also have a look at his edits over at Ron Dellums. Guettarda 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate

I have been assigned to be an advocate forUser:Justforasecond. Could you provide a summary why you felt the need to block him. (Include applicable policies)Thanks, Geo. 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe all relevant discussion is on User_talk:Justforasecond and WP:AN#Extended_block_for_User:Justforasecond. Kind regards, Nandesuka 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on Wikibreak, I have to go out of town to take care of some family business, so as the question has been raised I posted here because I saw your posts on Justforasecond's talk page when I went there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

When using rollback, please take care to use it only on obvious vandalism. This edit in particular could have benefited from a more descriptive edit summary. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good general rule, but I believe that User:Supreme Cmdr's monthslong campaign against that external link in the face of massive consensus to include it makes it Honorary Vandalism. But, I'll be sure to give it a description in the future. Nandesuka 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he's being severely disruptive at the page by his misinterpretation of policy; if you have a productive way to solve it then do let me know :) Stifle (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]