Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Please leave me a message below, if you're so inclined. Nandesuka 20:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing in reply to a message I recieved. I am not spamming in 'Fairy'. The links are links to wikipedia like any other. I consider it unfair that you deleted the posts about the multicultural faerie links, and the anthology. Why are you behaving this way? I corrected my initial mistake.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Cunningham syndrome

Feel like closing this? I'd do so but I added a second pseudo-subpage to the nomination, so I'm "involved."
brenneman ^{L} 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly insane, as tht is exactly the close that I would have made. Enjoy your pariah-hood.
brenneman ^{L} 00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: Actually TWO of us cited sources dating the term earlier than its Wikipedia article. After I found one source, someone else posted a source that was a year older than that. Wryspy 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. It's clear that the term had been used, but that doesn't make the particular way it was being used in this article (and all throughout Wikipedia, incidentally — you wouldn't believe how much I've had to scrub) was not original research. Nandesuka 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the AfD. I now note that the Cousin Oliver page now has a long list of examples, and there's a new discussion on its talk page as to whether the article should also include the addition of new adult characters to TV shows! One suggestion is the creating of a new list-article for adult cast additions. Asa01 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Lives! Article Chuck Cunningham syndrome has returned. How can that hapen? Asa01 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fetal hope and along with the TTTS Foundation, we are the only non-medical foundations that support TTTS. Is it possible to move our external link from the bottom to the top or just under TTTS Foundation? We are the only foundation to have the leading TTTS Treatment centers on our board.

Thank you,

Fetal Hope

Thank you for your comments. While you have a good suggestion and one we will take up, we do not appreciate the tone accusing us of using Wikipedia as the likes of Google. We request the placement only to help save babies lives. If you could save two babies lives today by getting information to a family, would you? We are asking nothing more than being listed in a means that might provide that hope. Most people do not look at the last links, but only the first couple of ones. The other links are medical resources that are on our site and on our board advisory, so we would not be infringing on their placement. We hope you understand this.

Again your suggestion on the text insert about the role of ours and other organizations is important. We intend, with our medical board, to edit quite a bit because the information can be more detailed and some is outdated.

We hope that you appreciate and understand why this is so important. Twice as many babies die from TTTS as SIDS, yet more of the population is aware of SIDS.

We thank you for yor understanding. We are not looking for Wikipedia to be an advocacy or a google!

Why did you delete the List of Soul Calibur Bonus Characters? Regards, iswatch19 09:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Reply! but why is the article deleted? I want to known more.

I am considering filing an RFC against User:Supreme_Cmdr due to conduct and persistently ignoring consensus. Would you certify the basis for the complaint if I filed such an RFC? Stifle (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, because then someone who is hopefully neutral will take an interest on the page and see how you folks have blatantly abused your authority and with wanton disregard for policy. So go ahead, file it. The more attention his page gets, the more likely it is that someone will step in and sort it out. In fact, I've already sent a strongly worded email to Wales about this.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr is now ready. Please review, and sign if you agree. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked JBKramer about this on his talk page. I'm guessing he is referring to the idea that SC is DS. Addhoc 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Guessing wrongly as it happens. Addhoc 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for help in stopping that anon user (actually a reincarnation of [[User:Alienus}}). Do you know how to have someone blocked for sockpuppetry? LaszloWalrus 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have implied that I am James Salsman. I am not. Do a checkuser or tell me how to reach you by phone. Peter Cheung = 69.228.65.174 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implication that I merely implied that you were James Salsman. Nandesuka 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I ran "Peter Cheung's" IP through geobytes and it came up in San Fransisco, right by where James lives, but no where near the real Dr Peter Cheung in Texas. I have emailed the good doctor (the real one), and am awaitng a reply. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I demand a full head of curly hair!

Or, "How to make people cranky without even trying." As anyone whom has ever been in charge of a toddler knows, making a demand that you can't enforce is certain to mostly make the demand-ee cranky. How about asking nicely? - brenneman ^{L} 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Encyclopedia Dramatica deleted? What is it anyway? --66.218.12.190 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, why isn't there allowed to be an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica? It is an actual website. If there was discussion relating to this, could you please point me to it? --Phantom784 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The deletion discussion is |here. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this guy is another Alienus sockpuppet: he deleted an entire block of text from Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality and labeled the change in the summary as, "sp," which is similar, I believe, to something an Alienus sockpuppet did before. Anyway, this is the guy: user:Aminotene. --Yossarian 23:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manga published in English by Tokyopop--Kunzite 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less certain that user:Gassali, et al, are socks of Primetime. Primetime stopped by my talk page to disavow those usernames, and there are indications that these other users have verifiable identities. They may be just coincidental plagiarists. -Will Beback 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pending ArbCom request reminded me to compliment you: your close of the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD was absolutely brilliant, the perfect sort of finishing touch that leads neutral parties (of which I was one) to see the wisdom in your resolution. The soundness of that close really helped the matter sail through DRV, and I'm sorry if you've been pestered over it by partisans. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to dispute this? Doctor Octagon 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Mr. Gilliland is written about and has been working in the field of Interaction Design for 10 years, has been a student, worker and contributer to computer science, Carnegie Mellon, the international art world, and has been photographed, appeared in magazines, newsletters and been a part of a University which has over 150,000 alumnus and 14,000 active community members at any one time. In addition to those sheer numbers of possible friends of Herbert Elwood Gilliland III, there are probably a number of people he knew in high school and other situations which could also explain why users of Wikipedia who number in the possible 100,000s if not millions could possibly be interested in mentioning someone whom they know is responsible for a variety of activities which are pro-environmental, product-development-oriented, and generally positive contributions to society. He has left an extensive paper trail in both the University and his work, which has been written about by several national magazines and newspapers whose subscription base is rather large. I dispute that he is not-at-all-notable in the fact that he is a scientist and artist and has contributed to high-profile and locally famous (in Pittsburgh, PA) art groups and shows, was once involved in broadcasting to a listener base of 10,000+ (at WRCT 88.3fm) and has also written a popular add-on for Dikumud. Google would be a great way to find him, searching www.cmu.edu would be a great way to find him. His resume is a great way to find out the information I have listed here, and searching his alma mater's paper files and the general web is another example. Since the community of web users is around 90 million it seems very possible that Mr. H. Elwood Gilliland III could be readily accessible via Google.com searches. Not to mention he has already been mentioned in Wikipedia in at least two other articles.

Regarding "why those two unconnected individuals would obsessively insert references to same in articles to which he has only the most tangential relevance" -- this is merely your opinion. I think providing insight into a sudden change in GM's manufacturing trends, and providing insight into the lineage of various products and articles, whose historical versions are readily accessible to anyone who uses the Wikipedia, are great examples of why two unconnected individuals would want to bring up censored material from past versions, and to create new citations for them which strengthen the argument or shed light onto existing topics, is a fine way of enhancing the Wikipedia and in addition is provided for by Wikipedia's design.

One might wonder why User:Atari2600tim is so preoccupied with basically censoring information about H. Elwood Gilliland III as it is borderlining on a hate crime since no one is apparantly allowed to talk about H. Elwood Gilliland III or his exploits it appears that anyone who challenges any of these users is obviously somehow circumventing a bias which has been inserted into Wikipedia, such as in the case of User:Jakew, a homosexual from Britain who spends almost every single day monitoring and approving or disapproving of contributions to Circumcision based on his own biased sense of what he feels the article should look like and contain. For this reason, anything written on Wikipedia should be considered completely biased and probably worthless for citation because of its inability to eliminate bias, despite attempts otherwise such as by mainly providing a variety of special flags and discussion opportunities to the contrary. I believe a policy against allowing citations of Wikipedia in literary work would ultimately benefit any academic or research institution, and it is probably viewed as a fairly unreliable source of information.

Are you jealous or something? It seems like you've joined the bandwagon as far as people who wish to shun or otherwise obscure any of his exploits. I am not a "sock puppet" and I feel that the ability to dispute "sock puppets" is obvious an under-developed portion of this service, since I am unable to dispute this with a greater audience than just the accuser and yourself. Adding an element of democracy would be a much better way of solving this problem, similar to jury-trial, since in this case there is no way for me to form advocacy for retaining my user account, other than to attempt to convince you that I'm not, which is unfair but is the established method, even if prejudicial, and thus the one I am following.

I would also like to add that in the course of creating this thesis I discovered that you have put Mr. Gilliland's NiMUD up for deletion. Frankly, I see this as a veiled attempt at destroying evidence of Mr. Gilliland's contributions, and since I have edited the pages and cleaned up a portion of both the NiMUD and online creation article, you will probably use that as some sort of smear campaign against me. That, I would call, manufacturing evidence, since I am clearly free to edit any article which I choose, as is anyone else.

I would also like to cite here Manufacturing Consent, which may be synonymous with your manufacturing evidence.

In addition to these claims, I would like to also return all search results for "Herb Gilliland", with the results pointing to the "other" Herb Gilliland removed by Google.com:

Herb Gilliland :: Portfolio Herb Gilliland heg@andrew.cmu.edu. EXPERIENCE. Media Designer Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Carnegie Mellon University. Supervisors: ... www.madmerv.com/folio/index.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Amiga Music Preservation - Herb Gilliland - Interview Amiga Music Preservation - Herb Gilliland - Interview - The biggest & most comprehensive amiga music database. amp.dascene.net/detail.php?view=3297&detail=interview - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

Nine Mile Run QTVR Project assistant Herb Gilliland has created a series of QuickTime VR movies which are ... Outside the Wood St Gallery (248kb) Photo by Herb Gilliland. slaggarden.cfa.cmu.edu/qtvr/index.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

User talk:Atari2600tim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia telerama.lm.com (Herb Gilliland) Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.diku Subject: The Isles 1.0 Date: 29 Jul 1994 01:27:06 -0400 Organization: Telerama Public Access ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Atari2600tim - 56k - Cached - Similar pages

Excerpts from Foerlin's Tome of the Realms Written by Herb Gilliland. Dedicated to Chris Cool ... The ideas contained herein are solely owned by the author, Herb Gilliland. ... www.mugs.net/~theisles/isles/foerlin.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

   Stellar Bodies // Celestial object viewer for Java // // Written ...
   Stellar Bodies // Celestial object viewer for Java // // Written by Herb Gilliland - March 2004 // // Compiled using IBM Jikes compiler using Proce55ing ...
   www.mugs.net/~locke/proce55ing/planetarium/planetarium.pde - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
   [ More results from www.mugs.net ]

Lydbury Grammar Clinic: sciencology Is there really a word "sciencology"? I'm not able to find any sitations which hold any weight thus far. ---- herb.gilliland@gmail.com. IP IP Logged ... www.lydbury.co.uk/grammar/forum_posts.asp?TID=14067 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Sidebar Web Design by Noel Hefele and Herb Gilliland art and ecology. slaggarden.cfa.cmu.edu/sidebar.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from slaggarden.cfa.cmu.edu ]

Programming Grant C. Carrington, Herb Gilliland, Guy Letourneau, Hank Reinhardt, Edd Vick. Michael Cassutt, James C. Glass, Larry Lewis, Kathleen Richardson ... www.cascadiacon.org/programming/ - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

The Arthur C. Clarke Foundation The other judges are Greg Bear, Joe Haldeman, Yoji Kondo, Elizabeth Moon, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Spider Robinson, Stanley Schmidt, Herb Gilliland, ... www.clarkefoundation.org/news/052204.php - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

User:68.162.128.9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Google for Pittsburgh PA Herb Gilliland and result #1:. Herb Gilliland 241 N. Dithridge Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412)726-2403 ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:68.162.128.9 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from en.wikipedia.org ]

Network Archives \ Processing 1.0 (BETA) herb gilliland 07 Oct '04. kaleidoscope Alcys 07 Oct '04. Genetic TSP tatsu 06 Oct '04. 3D Clock (needs Jsyn for sound) Salam Daher 05 Oct '04 ... www.processing.org/exhibition/network_page_7.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

On September 18th, 2003, I met with Electronic Arts Recruiter ... 2002: Escape Online by Martin C. Martin, Herb Gilliland, and others Now take a look at 2004: Screenshots of URBZ: Sims in the City by Maxis www.urbz.com ... www.madmerv.com/urbz/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.madmerv.com ]

Rhizome.org: Project Club Allison Bruce, Ziva Borlja, Peter Coppin, Herb Gilliland, Stan Jones, Minna Långström, Martin C Martin, Jean-Nicolas Vandelac, James Yang, Platform Digital, ... rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3331 - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

ART 62425 Interacive Ancient Egypt Herb Gilliland (MUDD), heg@andrew.cmu.edu. Sheila Halter (Archive), shalter@pghmail.com. David White (Flash), knave@sgi.net ... planetjeff.net/VAE/html/courseInfo.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

As well as all relevant results for Herbert Elwood Gilliland III:

Mad Merv Real Name: Herbert Elwood Gilliland III web programming and graphic design work My Interests: Computers, Video Games, Music, Art, Engineering and Activism ... www.madmerv.com/frames_1.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Young Zaphod ... Entire content of article was "Markus Greene was a fictional character in a science fiction tale of survival written by Herbert Elwood Gilliland III in 1994 ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Young_Zaphod - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

Chris's Home Page ... no other explanation possible. Herbert Elwood Gilliland III - An old friend; I haven't seen him in a while. He has cool ideas for games and stuff. ... www.watson.org/~tesla/friends.html - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

Doctor Octagon 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating my point that there are no reliable sources — in the sense defined in WP:RS — that assert that Herb Gilliland is in any way notable. Nandesuka 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, if you haven't seen it yet. Ehheh 00:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly going out of your way to provoke by making the most pusilanimous personal attacks. Stop. --Tony Sidaway 12:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of my comments is, quite simply, false. A better example of a personal attack would be this edit, where you refer to a fellow editor (apparently) as "utterly barking mad". Nandesuka 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mother always used to say, 'if you can't say anything useful, don't say anything at all'. Perhaps everyone involved in this might reflect on her words of wisdom. --Doc 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Doc. I shouldn't have gotten involved. Consider it droppd. Nandesuka 12:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete my "Fan Page Link Textual Description" section heading on the Derek Smart Talk Page and replace it with your own section heading. [1] I would like to discuss the status of the Werewolves link [2] as a link to a fan page. The section heading is meant to make this clear. There are other sections in the Talk Page where they discuss other concerns about the page(libellousness, BLP, EL, etc). AddHoc originally deleted my heading and replaced it the section heading "==Discussion about including potentially libellous link==" and I requested on his talk page that he not do so. 75.30.203.153 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are discussing the werewolves link. The discussion is precisely about how to characterize that link. It's inappropriate to assume the conclusion you want to reach in the heading. Nandesuka 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The section is specifically discussing the werewolves page as a fan page - using Wikipedia's definition of a fan. There is already a heading "Wording of the werewolves link" discussing other aspects of the Werewolves page. I'll change the "Fan Page Link Textual Description" to "Fan Page Discussion" - that will differentiate it from the preceeding "Wording of the werewolves link" heading, while keeping the fact that the section is about discussing the Werewolves link as a Fan Page link, but without any appearance of assuming a conclusion.

I am intrigued, because I looked at them, and I didn't see anything that said to me they'd been photoshopped. And if they had, the person doing it needs a retraining course. But could you pick one and say what the most obvious area(s) is/are, so I can have another look. Tyrenius 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the most obvious spot-heals in Image:Womaninspandex.jpg. Compare that to the "facial" photograph and the touch-ups should be obious. There are others, as well, but that's the most readily noticeable. Nandesuka 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I didn't realise you'd left it here. Unfortunately it seems not even admins can get to deleted pics, unless you know a way. Are you referring, for example, to the hair on the left hand side of the picture? I had a camera for a short time that did that kind of thing - processed it to remove noise and ended up removing detail, particularly in hair. I'm not arguing a point. I'm genuinely interested in such matters. On some of them (now deleted) they just hadn't touched up blemishes which I'd normally expect to see vanished. The compositions have no slickness in them at all, and pro porn is usually very slick. There's random ugly bits of background intruding. There isn't any decent lighting there at all, as far as the results reveal. And in one facial a highlight on the shoulder is so over-exposed it's whited out. Cropping on the black bodice one is non-existent. She's surrounded by redundant space. The most I can imagine is a self-taught amateur who puts them on a pay site to get some money (lots of that kind of stuff around and some of this kind of quality), which then makes nonsense of putting them on wiki for free. It's a strange world. Tyrenius 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out where his anon IP block is owned by his university and all that, on the second nomination for deletion of NiMUD. For some of the earlier sock puppet stuff a few months ago it seemed like I was the only one who even looked at it, and there were enough request for checkuser with my signature on 'em that I kinda felt bad asking for more and more checkuser requests every time an admin suggested he might be multiple people. I'm glad someone else other than me is able to recognize some of the more obvious and blatant stuff like that. So anyway, thanks. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about repeatedly wikilinking the bare month on the Fairchild Channel F and ColecoVision pages... force of habit! I gotta stop that... --Ecksemmess 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the AfD on Ivan Tyrrell but left the AfD notice on the article and did not put the AfD closure template on the talk page. I have removed the AfD template from the article but think that the summary on the Talk page needs to be done by you. If I have missed something (always likely :-) ) please put me right. BlueValour 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have a minor objection to the manner in which you closed this. Jimbo did not invoke jurisdiction in his off-hand comment; he simply expressed an opinion. Personally, I dislike it when editors "read the tea leaves" of Jimbo's remarks as if they were scripture. If Jimbo wants the DRV to end, he may close it, or say "close the DRV." Short of a direct command like that, his opinion is no different than anyone's, and may be less significant than others, given the number of things the man has on his plate, and the probable lack of time he has to invest in little squabbles. Anyway, I don't object to the closing, but I consider it done by you, under your own authority, just like any other DRV closure by any admin. I'm removing the reference to Jimbo, and I hope you understand why. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per what Xoloz said, I am highly tempted to unblock the user and may do so soon. If Jimbo thought the user should be indef blocked he should have done it himself. (At this point, I must say that I am highly disappointed in the general behavior on the Wiki about this. The user had multiple productive edits to topics completely unrelated to sexual matters and didn't act trollish at all. Contrast this for example with the crap with Courtney, an actual troll (who is amazingly unblocked at this point)). If the user chooses not to edit at this point, or edits unproductively it will be (in my mind at least) completely understandable. JoshuaZ 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the user per my above comments. JoshuaZ 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the block, even though I am not in favor of it. I have been having an email conversation with Jimbo regarding this situation, and I regard it as unambiguous that under the present circumstances he intends that this user be blocked. Dragons flight 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about this comment. Surely he has the right to see the evidence against him? --David Mestel^(Talk) 15:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He's not asking me to "show him the evidence." He's asking me to "prove it," which is an entirely different ball of wax. Presumably, if I actually did post the relevant logs on his talk page, his next complaint would be that I'm unethically releasing personal information about him. So it's really a no-win situation for me if I attempt to "prove it" to the general public. That's why I offered to show the information, in confidence, to admins that are concerned about the issue.

He doesn't need to see the evidence, because he already knows that I'm telling the truth about who he is. Nandesuka 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that like saying that someone accused of a crime IRL doesn't need to see the evidence against them because, according to the prosecution, they "already know" that they are guilty? It would be perfectly reasonable to ask him to give consent to the logs being posted. --David Mestel^(Talk) 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a government, and we're under no obligation to play nice with those who would abuse the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 00:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's just someone whom you accuse of abusing the encyclopedia - you've shown no concrete evidence why we should believe you. Why not just file an RFCU to sort things out? --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already noted, not all Checkuser requests go through WP:RFCU. Out of curiosity, have you actually looked at this user's contributions? Nandesuka 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should post a sockpuppet report and let things flow normally. Without another admin to investigate, he does have a point that he cannot respond to that. Posting a sockpuppet tag and not following through with the report that may incriminate or exonerate him is not really fair. Thanks -- Avi 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already pursuing this through private channels. Not all sockpuppet check requests go through WP:RFCU. Nandesuka 19:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of NiMUD. 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. Doctor Octagon 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There is a request for Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nandesuka, please do not remove the tags until the dispute is settled. Doctor Octagon 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no overwhelming majority on the talk page, yet you continue to revert this page. Clearly in violation of the Three Revert Rule. As such you are ask to stop, further continuation will result in reporting to WP:AN/3RR.Jigahurtz 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I am in violation of the 3RR rule, then I encourage you to report me. Obviously, I believe that I am expressing the clearly-expressed consensus from the talk page. Nandesuka 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is in no way such a consensus. I see three users supporting you, and one of them seems to be doing it due to a previous dispute, not for your reasons given.Jigahurtz 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree. Nandesuka 20:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact you, Nandesuka .. I am curious about why you welcomed back James Salsman on the depleted uranium page -and why don't people have e-mail contact points .. - rhelbig AT calif (ornia) dot com.

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Xbox 360. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jigahurtz 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that editing an article in accordance with the overwhelming consensus on the talk page is vandalism, then I encourage you to file an RfC. Nandesuka 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a small note in the article talk page of PS3. I will try to stay in touch with the article, but I am terribly busy with other two WikiProjects, and dead tired. Remember that, if we can't agree, we can always request a straw poll at the CVG WikiProject to determine whether the articles should have literal copy/paste of specifications or converted into prose, even if losing "exact" information. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, incivility and personal attacks are one thing. Wheel warring another. Obviously there is dispute on this matter, so I'd ask you to please reconsider your re-re-block of Massiveego. What good is this serving? How does 'punishing' him, on grounds which clearly do not follow policy, make him likely to be a better Wikipedian in the future? You disagree with and are angry with me... that in itself is a good reason not to act, but even if you are absolutely right wheel-warring to get your way is bad for Wikipedia. --CBD 12:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing administrator actions is not wheel-warring. We do it all the time and should. Taking administrator actions you know are disputed (whether reversing or initiating) is wheel-warring. Regardless of whether W.marsh's removal of his block was a "tantrum" as you say or not... his initial block was itself wheel-warring... and even had it not been, your re-instatement of a block you knew to be disputed would still be wheel-warring. The point is to not use your admin buttons to enforce your viewpoint when you know there are going to be admin objections / no consensus has been established. --CBD 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions." That's from the very first sentence of WP:WHEEL, which sets out very clearly what wheel warring is and is not. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was way down on the fourth sentence, "Wheel wars occur when administrators get too distressed to discuss something, or when an administrator takes it upon him or herself to undo another admin's actions without consultation, or deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at WP:ANI or WP:DRV) to implement their preferred version." --CBD 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it seems that while I was making a complaint here you were busily blocking him. You may wish to comment, or if you think the matter's dealt with, delete the complaint. I just wanted to let you know. Jakew 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just fell out of my chair laughing. RFerreira 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I was just venting my spleen on the Talk:Martial arts page about the list you removed. Well done, thanks! --Fire Star 火星 03:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if T.C. is enjoying all the attention. Evertype

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain to me what possible good this action served. I, along with several other editors, feel the block of Bdj was clearly a punitive one to silence argument. I would argue strongly that civil discussion is never disruption, and a block for such is always unwarranted. But, to then protect his talk page to silence any possible outlet is unfathomable. I hope you can illuminate the beneficial nature of this page protection for me, because as it stands it appears entirely without merit, against the principles of wikipedia, and not in good faith. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I explained it adequately on Jeff's talk page. But, since you're asking me to elaborate, it's quite simple: he was given that small block to cool his head. He was, instead, working himself up into a lather on his talk page and snapping at well-meaning editors who were offering advice. Jeff was blocked, more or less, for fomenting unreasonable amounts of drama, and the protection was to stop him from doing the same on his talk page. The protection was for his own good. Whether or not he believes that is not my concern. Nandesuka 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, where in WP:BLOCK does it suggest blocking people so they can "cool down"? The idea that a block would ever have the effect of calming someone down is ridiculous. Has it ever worked? I see no logic behind the idea that denying him the ability to speak on his talk page was in any way "for his own good." After your last, roundly denounced, block of Bdj, don't you think it would be advisable to show a little restraint with the mute button? As for your concerns, it is your concern to explain your actions to the Wikipedia community. I again repeat that Discussion is not Disruption and what I have seen this morning is an embarassment.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Nandesuka 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is some dark humor. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. Nandesuka 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to let you know that I'm going to quietly bow out of the discussion and revert war on the Xbox 360 page. I've removed it from my watch list because I decided that I have more important things to do around the wiki than fight with a couple of users who ignore consensus. I have no doubt that they'll eventually be put in their place for ignoring other editors' wishes and revert warring, but I'm through with arguing. It's really getting absolutely nowhere since they aren't bothering to respond to the points and just continue to insist that consensus is irrelevant so long as they disagree with it.

Anyway, have fun with that whole mess, and I'm sorry I can't manage to stick it out. I've made several other people aware of the situation, so I doubt it will be very much longer before someone takes action or you have enough support for an RfC. -- mattb @ 2006-09-07 05:00Z

• Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war.

If you dislike the guideline discuss it on the guideline's talk page.DeathSeeker 05:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That guideline doesn't actually say what you think it does.

(2) No one really uses that as a guideline anyway. It's totally incomprehensible (at least, to me).

Regards, Nandesuka 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't need the admin tools for now. Although I massively revert, it is only a 2-3 click action which does not bother me at all. I prefer focusing on building and polishing articles, at least for the time being. Thanks again. -- ReyBrujo 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your protection of User talk:Tobias Conradi. The template you placed on his page indicating that it was for vandalism and/or removal of warnings was clearly false. Nor is it at all appropriate for you to take action against him for incivility given your own engagement in incivility and personal attacks towards him. If you think that his behaviour is so bad as to require both blocking and stifling please get some admin who has not been abusive to him to do so. I would also caution you against things like this. --CBD 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have taken your own advice and found an uninvolved admin to remove the protection, rather than simply wheel warring over it. As to the other issue, if you will avoid shaking down well-meaning editors who answer the questions you ask in a straightforward manner, I'll avoid commenting on it. Nandesuka 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you for saying this. Evertype)

Hi Nandesuka, MONGO pointed me here to ask you about Encyclopedia Dramatica's closure after he decided he didn't want to dicuss it any further. I haven't been able to find any valid reasons yet (after reading much of the old DRV, the last AfD, and all of my DRV) and if you want to discuss it that would be appreciated. Otherwise I can look elsewhere. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the most recent AfD and the first DRV of it again, because it's fairly clear to me. If you can't understand the arguments articulated there, I doubt I'll be able to enlighten you. Best of luck, Nandesuka 20:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about understanding the arguments, it's about finding valid ones. I'll look more closely though, do you remember if they were they concentrated mainly in a certain section of the discussions? --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 00:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seem plain as day to me, all throughout the discussion. Good luck with your studies. Nandesuka 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then how about elucidating it for me? I have laughed myself silly reading the satire on ED's site and was curious about its origins and why it hates Wikipedia so much. But to my utter saddness, there isn't a Wikipedia article? How can a topic of interest NOT have at least biographical/historical references in the Wikipedia? Don't point me to a talk page so I can waste hours navigating through an ego fest... just please give me a reason why it was deleted?

ED failed to meet WP:V or WP:N. In short, it had no independent reliable sources say anything about it. JoshuaZ 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi N, regarding Tobias, I wasn't sure where to comment or what to say, and couldn't quite follow what was going on. If you'd still like me to comment, please say where, and I'll try to concentrate. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, greetings. I have created several articles on Wikipedia and I did not realize at the time because of my ignorances that I could not set up an account using my companies name and editing as the same. When I found out I made strides to edit said articles as my own editor and not using facts from our company. I have ran into a problem with an editor that you yourself have had to block for civility and improper wiki editing tactics. The editor is Wikipediatrix. She has been rude to me from day 1. She has used language that is very harsh and she does these rambo edits without explaining why she is doing them or refusing to do anything to help me to improve the problems. When I respond, she uses terms like. "I thought you would have been smart enough to know that?" or she will even go to her allied editing buddies and have them gang up on me as well. I am really getting tires of this. I set up a new account because they blocked the username I was editing under and I am alright with that because I understand now what Wikipedia's terms are for editing under a company title. However, they have tagged several of the articles that I created and on one of them Wikipediatrix has removed every cite that I have put on and even removed a complete discography and filmography for an artist that my company handles and I know the facts very well. She states she cannot find reference to the dicography so she chose to remove it? I did a google search and found most of it myself. This is just ridiculous! If you look at the history of her discussion page you will see that she is very aggressive and causes waves wherever she goes. For a new editor such as myself, that can be very discouraging. I am at the point where I just want to delete these articles and forget about wikipedia. She and some of her friends have gone onto an article that I created about our company and has tagged it as a hoax company? IAMAS Corporation is an American entertainment and media corporation with 19 offices throughout the country. They are a private company and are not open for public consumption because of dealing with celebrities. The learning universities are located in Japan and New Zealand in which I referenced the Japan based website. They tagged it because they said there were no reference to anything being done across the oceans {which is totally untrue} and that it does not say anything about being a corporation. The site clearly says that when it comes to the learning institutions they only refer to them as IAMAS. They were told by several editors that before they make these tags they should post it to the talk pages and lets discuss it before making such tags. These people do not listen to any of this and I have to say I am very tired of dealing with it. The company is not a hoax, nor does it deserve to be tagged in such a fashion. But again, no one went to the discussion page to ask about the format of the company? The article that they like to go after me about is an artist by the name of David L Cook. I have cited things and she will remove the cites claiming they are not proper cites? Yet, other editors have said they saw nothing wrong with them? I have included qoutes from other people and she has removed them saying that they were not proper. That is fine, however there is a proper way of doing it without being nasty and abrassive. If you look at the discussion page for David L Cook, you will see that I have tried to get her to help and to explain why she does what she does. To explain her tags and edits. She says she doesn't have to or she gave a brief discription in the editing tag line. Other editors have told her that instead of using all of these tags she should get her hands in there and help in the editing. She wrote back to him and said that why should she do that when she has the tags? Why would Wikipedia give her the tags if she was expected to do the editing? I am sorry, is'nt that what we are here to do? Help each other to make wikipedia a viable source of information?

If you could please help me I would be forever grateful for it. Otherwise, I am just going to delete my articles and be done with this whole thing. I feel defeated with this woman and I am sorry, she has turned this into something very personal. She claims she hasn't, however too many have seen the same things I have. She now goes on about POV which I have been very aware and careful of, But According to our own Wiki rules;

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions." Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

I look forward to cooresponding with you in regards to this issue. If you could just watch her and see how she treats these issues, I would also be in debt to you. Thank you Junebug52 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Generally speaking, the best way to deal with edit conflicts is to discuss the issues fully on the talk pages of the articles in question; if one editor disagrees with you, then often you can find others to take up your cause. If many editors disagree with you, you should reexamine your contributions with an open mind. Nandesuka 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nandesuka, I will keep that in mind. I am just tired of her attacks and narrow mindedness. I would not have a problem with her edits if she explained or helped and others did not have simular problems with her rudeness. I appreciate any help you can give. Junebug52 22:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, I would hope that you're aware that at no time have I done anything of the sort that "Junebug52" has claimed, as a simple glance at the talk pages and the history will show. Furthermore, I would have hoped you would have corrected Junebug52's statement here that you blocked me for "civility and improper wiki editing tactics", which is of course not true. If anything Junebug52 states in this long tirade against me is true, I would love to see a diff. wikipediatrix 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that Junebug had claimed that I had blocked you. I guess that got lost in the flood of detail. It's somewhat hard to parse. Nandesuka 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible

It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first.

Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. Accessibility is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less-knowledgeable readers (who may be the largest audience), without reducing the value to more technical readers.

• Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy

In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.

• Wikipedia:Editing policy

Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.

Your breaking official wiki policy and guidelines.DeathSeeker 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong last time, and you're wrong this time. Don't force me to prove it. Come over to the good side. Nandesuka 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wrong? Everything you've done to this article violated the three above. And every reversions you've made violates guidelines.

Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancyis a guideline dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.

Yes, I understand that you hunted around until you found an obscure and, to be frank, somewhat incoherent guideline that nobody has ever paid much attention to to justify your position. That doesn't give you the right to undermine the consensus process, which is one of the core pillars that supports Wikipedia. If you think it does, you are in for a very rude awakening. Nandesuka 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of knowledge on basic wiki policy is no justification for your violating edits.DeathSeeker 00:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't say I didn't warn you. Nandesuka 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is any consolation, I think you handled the situation well. What was odd is that in the process, because the user was just blindly reverting, the user was wiping out other info, thus taking away even more credence from the user's arguments. Right now it is still in that very unsavory state - I'll try to revert/clean it up tomarro morning if it is still that way :). RN 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if I'm back, really, for a while I felt like I was a vandal/troll (apparently that would raise my value to Wikipedia in the eyes of some, so why resist it?). Anyway... I've never lost my deep enthusiasm about the article namespace and all that represents... it's just the nastiness and backwardness of the "other" areas of Wikipedia that was quite upsetting when I finally encountered it firsthand. I've voluntarilly had myself de-sysopped until I figure out what I'm doing... so let's just see where this goes. Thanks for your note. --W.marsh 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakew is the editor who is pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the pro-circumcision bias of the Circumcision article. I am the victim of male genital mutilation, so I'm not going to take kindly to him keeping a wikipedia article in violation of NPOV so he can work out his cognitive dissonance and get other little boy's rights violated in the same way mine were. I am the victim of a GOMCO Clamp (They leave a very distinctive scar) Lordkazan 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, it's hard to stay civil with Jakew blocking every attempt to bring the article into a more NPOV state - I go to the talk page first, I don't simply edit, and it's REALLY frustrating to have my attempts to make the article more neutral be blocked by a known POV-pusher Lordkazan 03:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(additional note) while it's hard to stay civil with him, I will attempt to do a better job in doing so. Lordkazan 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Nandesuka 03:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. It's really frustrating trying to get that article more neutral - I went to the talk page to try and create a consensus before making edits, but it seems Jakew has no interest in reaching a consensus other than "my way or the highway" :/ Lordkazan 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Lordkazan 15:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but it will sit a whole lot better with me if you do something to make him remove the untrue statements spread all over Wiki. I never referred to him as an anti-Semite or Islamophobe; holding some views which are Islamophobic and/or anti-Semitic does not necessarily make one an Islamophobe and/or anti-Semite. I`ve made this point before, but it doesn`t seem to register. His repeated assertions are just not true; lying is a serious violation. Calling me a "criminal" in various places certainly doesn`t help the dynamic, either. There are many others, but you get the point. I will follow your advice now, but I think you may be wrong about who is being more provocative. For the record, my goal is not to have him banned but to have him change his behavior to conform to policy. If he cannot or will not do this, however, it should be expected that some further administrative action be taken. Dasondas 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nandesuka :) Crimsone 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up at the Thoreau page. Perhaps you should keep watching it and add to the comments on the talk page if they start up again, as I'm getting quite lonely. Also, maybe check out the anarchism page (well, talk page, since the anarchism page is protected). Thanks. Oh, and that was totally the best scene. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having blocked this user, you might be particularly interested in the recent edit history of Umbilicus. I smell a bunch of sockpuppets. —freak() 14:12, Sep. 11, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would put a sockpuppet notice on me, but I am not a sock puppet. How can I respond to this? Herbert Elwood Gilliland III 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a different main character each time. Young Zaphod was the first one that anybody went to the trouble to really point out very well. I understand that you no longer use Young Zaphod, and Herbert Elwood Gilliland III is your main character now, but it'd be too much work to rename it all to say that YZ is a sock puppet ran by HEG rather than the other way around. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your best response would be to stop inserting vanity material on yourself in Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for inadvertantly recreating deleted content: I made a reference to it on AFD (ironically as an example of subject-specific sites with content we shouldn't bother with) and was surprised to find it a redlink. Is there an index of previously-deleted articles that one can check? In this instance, I am moderately surprised at the result: such a monumental undertaking should have attracted some reliable third-party comment. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Duh. I guess one can just look at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/name -- this is just the first time I have run into the situation, so I've never bothered. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Aeon the Deputy Coordinator for the AMA. I have reviewed and declined Hans Gruber's request for an advocate on the grounds of Sockpuppet abuse and bad faith request. Thanks for the additional information Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I should like to shake your hand. Watch out for new socks though. Regards, HawkerTyphoon 11:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a bot of yours reverted my revert to Ron Jeremy or if you reverted it yourself but either way, it should not have been reverted. The version up now is how it has been for the last several months. Regards.205.188.117.11 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]