You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. Also, a checkuser has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 02:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

I'd like to put some notes on problems with the proposed decisions to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision, mostly with regards to weasel wording like "strong and repeated criticism," "a full description," and "opposition from those." Since you're sometimes a sensible person, I though I'd pass it by you first. I'm 87% sure you'll be telling me "Just leave it," but I live in hope. brenneman ^{L} 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that you are still interested, I have left Mr. Lambert a warning for violating our 3RR policy, and reverted the page to a more concise version.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
05:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making you the guinea pig -- I couldn't resist.  :) These counters are just begging for that little trick. --VKokielov 04:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is sneaky vandalism in making the counter report incorrectly... then it's correct. So it's not vandalism, so the counter is incorrect... Tony gets his wish.
brenneman ^{L} 04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll play for two...Who's ultimately the vandal? I hope I am taken in good spirit. I just didn't have the patience for April 1.  :) --VKokielov 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings:

You have reverted the Online creation article 3 times in less than 24 hours. I will instead take this opportunity to point you in the direction of WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS, and respectfully ask that you reflect upon how that policy may be relevant to your feelings toward the Online creation article. Please refrain from further reverts, and please attempt to meet your fellow editors in some sort of compromise on the appropriate talk page.

Thanks. Jlambert 19:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, Mr. Pot.

Regards, User:Kettle

Please see my posting on User_talk:Centrx#declined_my_unblock_request_.2F_any_specific_reason.3F. 87.78.158.52 18:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget turnovers. If you (or your pastry chef) has a good hand with crust, they really show it off, and they still have that delicious fruity filling. :-) FreplySpang 19:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

Dear crony comrade;
It is entirly possible that I am wrong that this is an idea that was rushed into headlong, and predicated largly upon an IRC chat with Jimbo that no-one is privy to, and that the proponents are all over the shop like a madwoman's breakfast with the facts. I'd appreciate you looking over the (lengthy, convoluted) discussion and giving me your input.
brenneman ^{L} 00:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the word 'one' to 'some' in one section; why? If you count the 'things' being criticized in the section there is actually 'one' thing that is being criticized (not a few or several or many). The correct terminology for that section is 'one' . Calling it 'some' is exaggeration, POV and perhaps vandalism. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia one bit; 'one' = 'one'; more than 'one = 'some'. 19:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please try to avoid using rollback or rollback-related functions during content disputes - they are meant to be used for vandalism. — Deckiller 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Deckiller. Thanks for the reminder. That's true of popups rollback too, incidentally. Nandesuka 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is beginning to irk me. Amusing as his hypocrisy might be, it concerns me that he's so...determined. How much can someone care about loathing Ayn Rand? I mean, I loathe her, too, but it's really more of a hobby, not a career, and I'm not about to go around reverting things about her just because I don't like her. His petty trail of bile is growing tiresome. Though Al and I, perhaps, share something in common ideologically, I see no reason for this kind of disrespect to the community, regardless of whether or not he was wronged by "rogue admins" (one of whom seems to be me, according to his last edit, despite...you know...my not being an admin). Is there no way he can be dealt with civily but bluntly? -- Yossarian 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to block proxy servers (like User_talk:85.214.73.63) if you're angered about just one temporary user of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhartmann (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 October 2006

Hi, Just wanted to say, I liked your post. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see why you'd say that my edit to Mr. Poledouris' page was simply my own disgruntled perspective, but actually, if you are at all familiar with the Starship Troopers soundtrack and the critical reviews for it, you will see that I was merely summing out what is the OVERWHELMING popular opinion. Again, I am referring to Zoe Poledouris' song at the end: "Into It." Wikipedia allows for us to summarize the general consensus/response of media (such as music), and that was all I was doing.

Unless you have a better reason for the edit not being there, then I'll put it back. I'll give you a day or so to respond.

No hard feelings, just trying to make wikipedia the best and most informative news source it can be! :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teenwriter (talk • contribs) .

• LOL, Well, you're entitled to that, I guess. Here are some citations (just search the page for "into it" or "Zoe"; I tried to highlight the text for you):[1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

I think that should be enough to get us started, but if you want to see more of the "everyman" opinion, just search through amazon.com reviews. You'll find very easily that the general idea is that Basil's score is excellent while Zoe's song is...(sorry) plain nasty.

You recently reverted Supreme Cmdr's changes among others in the Derek Smart article, asking him to recieve concensus before reverting, but his edits do not appear to have been simple reversions but he is indeed making attempts at improving the article. I ask that instead of reverting other user's contributions, you make clear what parts in particular you disagree with and perhaps deal with those areas in particular, but many of his changes were valid. So, I'm asking if you could re-evaluate your reasoning for reverting him if possible and perhaps a good-faith self-reverting may be just the tool to allow discussion to continue instead of continued edit warring. I do not want to re-protect the article as it appears progress is being made. If I'm missing something, feel free to tell me as well. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just go to the page and do a blanket revert without regard for other people's edits. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, before you remove material or accuse people of trolling, you might want to actually read what it is you're removing. Oh wait, thats right, your pattern clearly indicates that you just don't care. You sir, are a disgrace to the efforts of Wiki. Have a nice day. 208.60.251.161 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care that you have now semi-protected the page. You have clearly once again demonstrated that you are not fit to be an admin and that you should be desysoped. The comments I removed from the talk page are as per the WP:BLP guidelines which quite clearly permit me to do so. Huffman's posted links are poorly sourced and derogatory and thus are in violation of [[WP:BLP]. You have been involved in that page for quite some time now and you should NOT be allowed to make such decisions because you have a one sided view. 209.214.20.227 13:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your choices: stop behaving disruptively, or stop editing. Choose. Nandesuka 13:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have NO basis for your claims and I'm currently in the process of filing a complaint against you. 209.214.20.227 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources / Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Consensus

  (cur) (last) 04:55, 16 October 2006 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) (This obviously does not have consensus as a guideline. There does not need to be consensus to demote - merely a lack of consensus that it has meaningful standing.)

  (cur) (last) 04:38, 16 October 2006 152.91.9.144 (Talk) (replaced guideline tag after revert with edit summary "rv" only. get wider input before making this change)

  (cur) (last) 04:23, 16 October 2006 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (rv)

  (cur) (last) 04:12, 16 October 2006 152.91.9.144 (Talk) (no consensus to "demote" this. widely accepted, long upheld, etc etc)

  (cur) (last) 01:13, 16 October 2006 JYolkowski (Talk | contribs) (guideline->essay, see talk)

You may be interested in this bit on wrangling. Easily seen as an attempt to force Wikipedia:Attribution in by the back door, but who am I to speculate on editor's underlying motives. - 152.91.9.144 06:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, took me a bit to get back to you.

What I'm saying is I think Encyclopedia Dramatica may merit an article, or at the very least a discussion on the merit of said article. May I request the discussion page be unlocked? Klosterdev 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can request it, but it's unlikely to happen. The arbcom has indicated in its recent decision that "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time." Frankly, that doesn't seem like an invitation to reopen the debate to me. Nandesuka 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more to me like the fact that using ED as a source for other articles is not allowed (which seems reasonable, it's not exactly reliable). An article specifically about ED should be a completely different matter and seperate issue as far as I can tell. 62.79.64.148 14:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is uncivil as it is a mischaracterization of the content you removed. Well cited content is NOT WP:OR despite what certain editors may claim. Lordkazan 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment Goldfritha 02:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please explain your recent edit to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? You removed a massive amount of content with no sound reason readily apparent. Somwe users might consider this vandalism. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation is "That was a complete screw-up." My apologies. Nandesuka 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Mervyn Marsh, I live in Australia. I am not sure why you are calling me "Herb", but hello anyway. Corporate fudiciary 21:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am, apparently, a newbie at this kind of dispute resolution. I have no idea what to do, but ask you, since you have dealt with Mr Conradi before, to please see [6] and advise me what the correct procedure is. I have endeavoured to correct material errors in his edits, as well as to remove inappropriate references to myself, and he simply reverts every time. He is well over the three-reverts rule. I am probably also over the rule, but my reverts have in every case attempted to correct and improve the article, while his have simply been gainsaying. Please help. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this escalates to a RfC, please let me know. Thanks, Nandesuka-san. -- Evertype·✆ 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Susiesmile.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a total mess of an article about somethiing that might actually bear writing about: Uncited, full of external links, and written in a breathless advertorial style. If you feel like working your magic, just click here -> Major League Gaming
152.91.9.144 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this, either this is for real, or James has taken it upon himself to impersonate on of the sources in the article. I hope the checkuser will clear this up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badlydrawnjeff has been deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting the content of WP:BIO on numerous AfDs today, claiming it says "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" are inherently notable, when it clearly says no such thing.

Jeff continues to repeat this falsehood on AfDs even after it's been pointed out that what it actually says is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" and then goes on to spell out specific criteria regarding what constitutes "notable".

He has regarded it as a personal attack that I am repeatedly pointing out where he is leaving out the crucial part of the sentence every time he cites WP:BIO. Please advise. wikipediatrix 18:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sara_Racey-Tabrizi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Staricha
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayla Rubinelli
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Wilkner

Hi, I really want to know about your user name. In Wikipedia, Everything could be curious like username, and other things etc... I personally think that there are many username that I have never heard before like cartoon character's name as user name. I have no idea what does your user name mean? Your user name Nandesuka has made me very curious. So, May I ask about your user name? What does Nandesuka mean? As I found some information about your user name on dictionary, internet for Curiosity, there is no information about meaning of your user name. Sorry for asking many questions. I hope you could explain to me about your user name later in my talk page. Best Regards. Daniel5127 (Talk) 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited anything on wikipedia for a week. The Checkuser which TDC requested is "unrelated" although there is a loose end from a clerk that needs to be tied up. I wasn't Peter Cheung, either, and I note the huge edit to Depleted uranium came from an IP in Dallas very near Plano, TX where Peter is from. Also, the "open proxy" that he was supposed to be editing from is part of a dynamic IP DSL DHCP pool.

Most importantly, I'm asking you to refrain from any kind of an immediate reaction: Please post to WP:AN/I with a summary of the situation and what you think should be done because you and I have been personally involved acrimoniously for at least half a year back during the DU ArbCom case. I've asked questions relative to this non-standard practice of yours in your ArbCom candidacy questions.

It is hard for me to feel any ill-will towards you since I believe I may have just been vindicated for a long-standing false accusation, and I very much look forward to that state of affairs. I hope you don't hold my very legitimate questions against me, and that we can move on.

As fair warning, I certainly do intend to urge a select group of people to revert to the recently expanded Depleted uranium article but I will hold off until a week from today out of courtesy given the complexity of this situation.

Finally, I would like to ask you to remember that even if I have made an occasional small edit to potentally related articles such as Uranium from which I was not specifically excluded by the ArbCom, WP:IAR is an official policy to which all editors, including those sanctioned by the ArbCom, are expected to adhere. LossIsNotMore 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the evidence of your sockpuppeting is fairly cut and dried, as discussed on the log of blocks and bans in the arbcom case. Checkuser can only prove that two users are related; it can't ever prove that they're unrelated. I noted my ban on the Depleted Uranium arbcom case, and I think that's perfectly adequate notice. Nandesuka 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A question has arisen about the Coffee varietals article that you created in April of this year. Would you please weigh in on the issue on the article's talk page? Thanks. ScottW 16:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wiped out another user's comment with this edit. Just a heads up that you might want to fix that/be more careful with edit conflicts in the future. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Thanks for letting me know. Nandesuka 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say that I've added a set of questions here. Carcharoth 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on his talk page about Wikipediatrix. This is not about that case (I didn't know about it), but acting on the belief that Police one another is a necessary collolary of Defend one another, I have opened an RFC against PMA here. Thatcher131 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears you are aware, 123wiki123 is now on a 4th 5th revert of XBox 360, as has been his custom both with that name and the previous sockpuppet(s). Just curious, is it bad form for me to report it to WP:AN3 since I've reverted twice? He already believes you and I are the same person. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--I noticed your edit wherein you commented out the the source code comparison/derivative work claim. (Your edit was initially reverted without explanation by another user, which is a tad unfortunate). There was a citation earlier in that section, but I've added another adjacent link to a website (moving to a full-blown Harvard citation/reference system would be nice, but perhaps a bit out of proportion for this article) containing a thorough source code comparison, with explanation. For a relatively obscure subject such as this one, it's near-impossible to find any source approaching the objectivity of say a newspaper or journal, but the website I referenced contains source code diffs that would satisfy any programmer as to the veracity of the code provenance claim. This is assuming, of course, that the leaked source code was indeed "leaked", and a valid snapshot of the MUD's codebase, but I believe it was compiled and run by several different people, and it was either the MUD's code, or a very accurate simulation (the man hours involved in creating the latter would make that very improbable).

Traumerei 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their question pages), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and .)[reply]

Dear Nandesuka—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree that the usenet flamewars are notable, and would like mention of them included, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We cannot use a usenet post as a source for a statement about a educational degree. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use a Usenet post as a source for the truth of the matter of whether or not someone has a PhD. We can use Usenet posts as a source for the question of whether something was discussed on Usenet. At least, that's my opinion. Nandesuka 14:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a curious thing that most things prefaced with "with respect" are demonstrations of lack of respect. I don't much care that the introductory paragraph of this article is not "readable" with the qualifiers added to it, but I do care that it's hideously one-sided without them. Improve it if you can but simply reverting it is unacceptable to me. Grace Note 09:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect is clearly something you have no idea about. I don't have the time or energy to give you a lesson in it. Nor in English, which you are in want of, if your analysis of the paragraph is anything to go by. I think you're just being confrontational, not constructive, and I'm not interested in a confrontation. Sorry. Grace Note 08:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have prior experience dealing with vandalism by "PassionoftheDamon". He has repeatedly vandalized the Michigan football page by removing data concerning national championships. He claims no supporting data, and revises the page, but the supporting data is clearly included on the discussion page. In conclusion: 1) championships, before the BCS, were not unified; 2) several reporting services voted for various teams in various years; 3) even Wikipedia's NCAA page doesn't really get it "right"; 4) the "official" NCAA page (at the NCAA site) clearly supports the fact that the Wikipedia page is not fully accurate and that the NCAA recognized various services. Notwithstanding the foregoing support, which at a minimum leaves the issue open to discussion and not final, PassionoftheDamon changes, at his whim, the Michigan page. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to enforce a a ban, but you seem to be familiar with the mechanism. As a person who is probably neutral on the subject matter, might you look into imposing a ban for the reasons mentioned above? Thanks in advance. Wolvve85 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on the article Derek Smart, which you have been involved with in some manner. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what needs citing as it's quite confusing what it being questioned and in what manner it needs to be stated. I don't know how to cite the fact that both men wear glasses or that their productions styles are obviously similar, nor do I know how to cite something that doesn't exist (Trevor Horn's Jazz credentials). It is quite important to a non British audience to know Horn's UK stature, he is "royatly" of sorts within the British rock and pop community, this needs to be imparted in a way that others will grasp.

Hello:

As per discussion (moved to User talk:Nandesuka/Leflyman), a Request for Comment has been opened involving you at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nandesuka. Please review the matter there. Regards,-- Leflyman^Talk 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the anon IP(s) who keep reverting archived content on this talkpage: your edit-warring here is not helpful. Please stop.--Leflyman^Talk 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think we've made our point. I, for one, am not going to revert anymore, so people will just have to check the history to see where Nandesuka's been hiding his dirty laundry. To the other anon users who've been involved: please honor Leflyman's request, as he's trying to work within this broken system and deserves his chance. Good luck, kid. - Seven of Nine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.191.27.4 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To the extent that his edit-warring here helps demonstrate exactly the sort of slow-burn harassment and block evasion via Tor he has been engaged in for the past 6 months, it's actually quite helpful: it's a vivid demonstration of why semi-protecting articles against this user's misbehavior is appropriate. Nandesuka 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, since the only other person, Buridan, who could certify the RfC hasn't been on or available in the last two days, it didn't receive the attention necessary to proceed. That is not an "outcome" but a lack of an outcome. As to your comments, however, I find them unbefittingly condescending in tone. The lack of response to the RfC is not an indication of the appropriateness of your actions, nor should you claim that "tepid response" is equivalent to agreement. Having a trio of friendly editors comment in support is hardly a recognition of the rightness of knee-jerk protections.

Just as you urge me to join you to "put aside the short-sighted legal positivism, and help defend Wikipedia", I urge you to put aside your ego, and uphold the principals of Wikipedia, by admitting that you made a mistake in protecting two articles which were not in need of protection, at the request of a user who wishes to keep his particular version intact. You demonstrate not good faith, but continued intransigence in claiming otherwise. If you truly wish to protect Wikipedia from "those who would use us as a soapbox" then you should refrain from supporting the edit warring being perpetuated on numerous pages by LaszloWalrus -- for at the core, it is he who is the disruptive factor that brings out anonymous editors, singular or multiple.--Leflyman^Talk 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I add some small criticism? Constructive, of course, and almost totally without having examined the facts in any depth. If you're the person who has dealt with a footwear parade, it may be more obvious to you than to someone uniniated. While I understand there is some dynamic tension involved in laying out exactly the behavior you've twigged to and driving that behavior underground, I can understand the concern that you might have the wrong guy. I don't have it this time, and I'd be inclined to take your word for it anyway, so I'm getting back in my box now...
brenneman 13:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you put in another semi-protect on Patrecia Scott. Alienus is at it again. LaszloWalrus 11:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nandesuka, I was hoping you could help carry out some renamings. I neglected to include Category:Aviation in Palestine, Category:Airlines of Palestine, and Category:Sport in Palestine in this CfD, though I think it supports their renaming to "...Palestinian territories". Another would be Category:Elections in Palestine to match its article, Elections in the Palestinian National Authority (which I think found support on the original CfD). Thanks and let me know, Tewfik^Talk 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to ensure that you saw my comments. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wikipedia. This user here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xizer&limit=500&action=history

You can tell by the number of his warnings and behavior is not needed here. He continuosly is calling people swear words and blanking his usewr page.

As we (A group of editors) have been trying to work on a page, this person has been coming along and being very disruptive.

Please remove this person, whose sole reason to bve on wikipedia is to cause problems.65.184.20.38 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently nominated Healthy multiplicity for deletion, but didn't yet add anything to the talk page explaining why and giving suggestions how the article could be improved. Please come into Talk:Healthy multiplicity and let's have dialogue. Thank you, --Bluejay Young 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please READ the source; I will bring it verbatim for you:

This report is confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes. In this case, the term "non-therapeutic" is synonymous with elective circumcisions that are still commonly performed on newborn males in the United States.

— American Medical Association, http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Leaving out this phrase is tantamount to MISQUOTING the AMA. -- Avi 16:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your accusation that I was inserting spam extremely insulting, and false. I was inserting well-sourced and factual quotes into three entries, that I spent ages working on.

You ask about the Clarkson entry why we should quote "everything Hari has said" about Clarkson. Hari has written over 6000 words about Clarkson and is his most prominent liberal critic. I quoted about 100 words of it; hardly excessive.David r from meth productions 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've now violated the 3RR rule on Fairyland Story and several other articles. Please stop. As is stated and you have been patiently explained, these were links added by general consensus on the Wiki Video Game project some time ago. Simply characterizing these as consensus you disagree with without seeking to actively change the previously established consensus does not make violating our editing policies acceptable. --Marty Goldberg 01:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're mistaken about my violating 3RR, but who knows -- perhaps you're right. Could you please provide diffs? Thanks so much. Nandesuka 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm assuming this is referring to me, but I'm confused. What I've seen is InShanee acts like an asshole and blocks anon/WT. WT objects. CBD acts like an asshole and blocks WT. Bishonen defends WT. I defend WT. Tony (?!) acts like an asshole imagining this is all a conspiracy to get InShaneee desysop'd. CBD says (to Tony) "what, are you nuts?". Bishonen takes offense at this (??). I'm trying to help straighten this out. If I'm defending any evil here (let alone reliably the "greater") please let me know. What I think I do, reliably, is defend anyone who is misinterpreted. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly more going on here than I'm aware of. If there's anything I might be able to do to help, please let me know (email if you want). I sincerely think nearly anyone can get along with nearly anyone else (there are, of course, exceptions). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting three comments from a respected journalist into trhee high profile people he has critiqued is not "spam", please eitehr back up that allegation or stop making it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.149.161.55 (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have said, "Please stop inserting overly-long quotes from Jonathan Hari into articles to which they have only tangential relevance. Thanks."

His name is Johann Hari, and they don't have only "tangenital relevance"; if they did, I wouldn't put them in.

On Bat Ye'or, Hari write a 5000 word analysis of her writing. On Jeremy Clarkson, Hari is the most prominent liberal critic of him in the British media. And on Mark Steyn, Steyn himself has said Hari wrote the "long awaited liberal takedown" of his book, as you can see at www.steynonline.com.

In which of these three do you think Hari's criticismns, which represent a wider liberal critique of the three, is of "tangenital relevance"? - DavidR

What makes your changes spam is that they are shotgunned across a number of articles, use space that is disproportionate to this author's importance or significance, and you appear to be unable or unwilling to address the concerns of multiple editors who indicate to you that your behavior is inappropriate. That you would have the temerity to demand equivalence with quotes from another author who is the subject of the article in question is an indication as to how completely out of touch you are on this issue. Please examine your behavior. It is unacceptable. Nandesuka 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what I wrote. As I explained, it's not about balancing (say) Steyn against hari. It's about balancing pro-Steyn views (obviously represented by Steyn himself) with anti-Steyn views. The quote from hari was deleted, I was told, because it was "too long"; therefore I deleted the very long and unrepresentative passages from Steyn's columns that are quoted there. Eitehr it is right to quote both pro and anti passages, or it is right to quote neither. You are currently deleting the anti-Steyn passages and leaving the pro-Steyn passages, which is leaving an unbalanced and unfair entry.

We are talking about an article that Steyn himself describes as "the long awaited liberal takedown of America Alone"; how is that an inappropriate thing to quote? Please answer this point.David r from meth productions 17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to apologize for your blatant misreading, seeing as you have no answer? - DavidR

Not at all. Are you still beating your wife?. Nandesuka 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So could you answer my point? You have defended your restriction on the Steyn entry with an argument that is demonstrably false, and I find it both hurtful and offensive. Here's the point I'd like you to answer:

It's not about balancing (say) Steyn against hari. It's about balancing pro-Steyn views (obviously represented by Steyn himself) with anti-Steyn views. The quote from hari was deleted, I was told, because it was "too long"; therefore I deleted the very long and unrepresentative passages from Steyn's columns that are quoted there. Eitehr it is right to quote both pro and anti passages, or it is right to quote neither. You are currently deleting the anti-Steyn passages and leaving the pro-Steyn passages, which is leaving an unbalanced and unfair entry. - DavidR

Please read and understood this section of the WP:BLP policy: WP:BLP#Critics, and then read the material you were trying to insert in the light of it. Wikipedia has very strict policies on the biographies of living persons. While it's certainly appropriate to mention criticism (and link to it), it is never appropriate to overwhelm an article with extended quotes that "appear to side with" a critic. Frankly, that's how your Extended Dance Remix Hari Excerpts look to me, and apparently to other editors as well. Nandesuka 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for honing your problem with my changes, but I'm afraid it is still based on erroneous assumptions.

In a 3000-word entry about Steyn that is overwhelmingly positive, I tried to insert 270 words of criticism from an article that Steyn himself has described as "the long-awaited liberal takedown of America Alone". I can't see how that fits your claim that I am "trying to overwhelm an article with extended quotes that "appear to side with" a critic". Can you explain how this is the case?

(Please note: I only deleted the long and pro-Steyn quotes later, after it was judged that (shorter) passages criticising Steyhn should be deleted). - David R

I have to reiterate: In a 3000-word entry about Steyn that is overwhelmingly positive, I tried to insert 270 words of criticism from an article that Steyn himself has described as "the long-awaited liberal takedown of America Alone". I can't see how that fits your claim that I am "trying to overwhelm an article with extended quotes that "appear to side with" a critic". Can you explain how this is the case? - DavidR

I'm relatively new here, but I know when a rat shows up and trolls a page. Especially a page like Flag of Israel which can be a magent for trolls and other great people. Thanks for the support and thanks for the block. I'm just sad that anon IP comes from the NYC Public School system... Because I came out of them as well! Whatever.... Thanks! Best, BaseballDetective 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nandesuka!

You can go ahead and delete HappyDays.gif, as I can't recall where I found the darn thing. Regardless, I've found a fairuse alternative, so nothing's lost. Cheers, Yossarian 05:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of a whole section from this article was inappropriate. While I don't know for sure whether it's original research or anything like that, mass removal of content isn't the way to tell us you think the content just might be out of place.

In future, please discuss such changes on the article's talk page first rather than just taking it into your own hands like this. See WP:BOLD#… but don't be reckless. -- Smjg 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. The removal of uncited material and original research is not simply appropriate, it is in fact the duty of responsible editors. Nandesuka 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you were removing what merely appears to be OR, not what blatantly is. Moreover, it's also the duty of responsible editors to assume good faith. But thank you for bringing it up on the talk page now. -- Smjg 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith" is a rule for interacting with other editors, not an excuse for allowing unattributed material into the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]