User talk:Nandesuka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:05, 21 August 2008

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs

Given the compelling arguments to at least redirect, could you please undelete the edit history and redirect? Plus, the nomination rationale was not policy based, but were arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. Even others arguing to delete indicated that the material is covered elsewhere (i.e. valid redirect location) or in their subsquent comments said they agreed with a redirect. As the article was not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous, i.e. there is nothing dangerious in its edit history, we can undelete the edit history, but allow for a protected redirect as suggested even by those arguing to delete. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on that page clearly was against a redirect, and "cogs" is far too generic a term to redirect to Toontown Online. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Near the end of the discussion, Prod suggested that "it should be a redirect to the Gears of War COGs" and I agreed. No one subsequently challenged that agreement. Moreover, if undeleted and redirected, the edit history remaining public does serve a useful purpose for anyone understanding the history of the redirect or should anyone who worked on the atricle run for adminship, non-admins participating in the RFA would be able to see their contributions. Thus, per that direction in which the discussion ended up, please undelete the edit history and redirect to List of Gears of War characters#Coalition of Ordered Governments .28C.O.G..29. I am not also opposed to some kind of relist with a section break that further considers the redirect suggestion by Prod. Also, the final post in the discussion prior to closing was this, I would have found it immensely helpful to have had at least some discussion as to how we might have possible used this information either in the article or elsewhere. Thus, even if the discussion had gone on for five days, the last couple of posts in it were starting to move in a constructive direction for some alternatives that could/should have been more thoroughly discussed, i.e. could we in fact use the kind of information suggested to in fact drastically revise the article to have this out of universe context or alternatively redirect to what Prod believed a more logical redirect location. Put simply, as deletion is a last resort, i.e. when all options for keeping in some manner have been exhausted only then do we redlink, in this case news ideas and alternatives were still be actively considered. Thus, at the end of the discussion when Prod suggested the redirect and I agreed or when he asked for sources and how they might be used and I indicated one and suggested a way of revising the article, no other editors had subsequently said at that point not to redirect or not to attempt a thorough revision of the article as suggested. I would accept an undeleted edit history and redirect, although I do think it would be helpful for the discussion to have continued to consider the new sources and redirect alternatives. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital cutting

I'm curious as to why you chose to archive this discussion a full two minutes after my last comment? Am I to take this as a sign you are no longer willing to discuss the issue? Blackworm (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Nandesuka (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being flippant, or are you genuinely confused? If the former, please advise me so I can stop good-faith attempts to communicate with you. Blackworm (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should always try to communicate with others in good faith. I already indicated in our previous discussion that we could continue this conversation on the article's talk page. Instead of taking offense at my archiving my talk page when it gets too long, could you maybe try switching to decaf? I assure you your messages had nothing to do with my decision to archive. Nandesuka (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not quite what you said -- you said you would be willing to discuss a different issue than the one I raised on the article's Talk page. Once and for all, does that mean you have no response to the question of whether a consensus does or does not exist for the removal of the POV-title tag from Female genital cutting? Blackworm (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe a consensus exists for the removal of the POV-title tag from that article: that seems perfectly obvious to me, and I don't see how one can contest it. I am watching the article's talk page, so please direct further discussion to me there. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that User:Ottava Rima be unblocked

I just wanted to let you know, so that if you disagree with my request, you can comment at the thread I opened at AN/I. S. Dean Jameson 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the request, and archived it, as no one had commented on it in 15+ hours, and there was little chance of it gaining the momentum needed to achieve consensus. ^S. _D.Jameson 17:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of Cogs

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Cogs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Model

I just returned the "laundry list". It is an extremely useful list because it makes it clear what type of people other than artists, eg prosthetic limb designers, might need a model. Amandajm (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarring female genital cutting

Well, since I could easily say that you are conducting a one-person editwar for the tag's removal as well, without addressing Talk page comments directed at you, your position seems weak indeed. In any case, I have requested page protection (again) to allow you time to debate your point that a debate does not exist. Please stop editwarring, however. You should know better. Blackworm (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolò Giraud

I was wondering if you could weigh in here per our recent discussion on a similar issue with Byron. I feel that I might be able to clean up the page some, but it will take time. If you think that it wouldn't be worth it, and that he doesn't deserve his own page, please advise and I will take that into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented. I'm still thinking it over. If the only thing that's really of note about him is "He had sex with Byron," I don't see how that warrants his own page. But maybe there's more about him that I don't know. Nandesuka (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, some of the information I can find so far - he apparently saved Byron's life in Greece, taught Byron Italian, Byron paid for his education, and he was given money in Byron's will (7,000 pounds according to some sources - "To Nicolo Giraud of Athens, subject of France, but born in Greece, the sum of seven thousand pounds sterling, to be paid from the sale of such parts of Rochdale, Newstead, or elsewhere, as may enable the said Nicolo Giraud (resident at Athens and Malta in the year 1810) to receive the above sum on his attaining the age of twenty-one years. here). I'm trying to find more information, but a lot of it relies on Byron (the whole sun vs stars problems). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM: Content fork about to be spooned

I've stated at LDV's personal life talk that I'm going to redirect and merge back into the parent article as it is a clear content fork. I'll be leaving this notice for all recent editors to the article and its talk page.
brenneman 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital cutting photo

good afternoon the photo that u have deleted is a real photo and could be placed in the article and it dosenot violate WP:NPOV. so i hope that u will understand my point and keep the photo .--Elmondo21st (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I certainly believe that it is a real photo, I'm just concerned that it seems a bit emotionally charged and, as such, is advocating a point of view in a manner not compatible with Wikipedia. I have, however, raised the issue on Talk:Female genital cutting, where I hope you will join us to discuss the issue. Nandesuka (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

I'll unblock with the condition that he accepts the previous caution as a restriction. Good? MBisanz ^talk 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given how this played out, I don't think that's appropriate, but opening an RFC to figure out such things to avoid this happening the next time might be. Nandesuka (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the block log :) MBisanz ^talk 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Insult?

Hello, I see that you reverted my edit on the Kathie Lee article, claiming WP:BLP. I am reviewing it, but I don't really see how it is in conflict. The section deserves to be there, it was a verifiable incident. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." I used a video of the incident in question as a source, from the nbc website, reported what happened, and what the reaction was, using several sources. I also presented the other side of the argument, in keeping with NPOV. I really have no bias in this issue, however noone seems to be willing to attempt to help me fix the situation, rather they simply delete it. I am willing to work with you to fix it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk page. Nandesuka (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope something will come up, i feel that the issue does need to be in the article. Maybe we'll find something. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Please note that he chose to delete your warning on his talk page. I know that there's nothing that prevents that, but his behavior is becoming extremely problematic. Deor (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, I do not know what is with your fixation on me, but I request that you kindly leave me alone already. I have had to contend with your magically showing up an any ANI thread I participate in, making it a point to discuss me with others as in the above, and personal attacks by reworking my username ([1], [2], etc.) despite my various efforts to be nice to you ([3], [4], etc.) and that I stay out of the various disputes you get into with others and otherwise generally avoid you. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He can delete the warning. I know that he saw it, and it will apply if he ignores what it says. That's all that matters. Nandesuka (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as these standards apply to those who repeatedly renominate articles for deletion that decisively closed as keep only to be snowballed in the second, or third, etc. AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter you can negotiate over. You will stop raising DRVs that are disruptive, or you will be blocked. There's no "So long as..." about it. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will as I always have only raise DRVs in good faith when I and others have legitimate concerns. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will, of course, act as you think appropriate. I'm simply making sure you understand that nearly everyone who looked at the Commander Dante DRV felt it was specious, and if you file another DRV like that, you will be blocked. I can't stop you from making your own mistakes, but I can make sure that I have clearly communicated the consequences of making them to you. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you are saying this to me, then to avoid coming off as hypocritical, I hope you will apply it to those who repeatedly renominate articles for deletion that decisively closed as keep earlier and then end up in snowball or speedy keeps the second or third time around. Because if that isn't "AfD round two", traying again because they disagreed with the earlier close, etc., then I don't know what is. As far as "nearly everyone" goes in my DRVs, per this thread, "Somerandomadmin" admits, "One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see this for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless." Thus given that off-wiki remark by someone claiming to be an admin, I am justifiably curious/suspicious if some are indeed actually showing up at and even closing DRVs I start just because I started them, i.e. regardless of the actual merits of my arguments and thereby making the results look skewed. I even came across a page (User:Stormie/DRV notes) made by one editor who also seems to find my DRVs and oppose them that for whatever purpose only lists DRVs I started. As far as the Commander Dante one goes, the closer was okay with me writing an article on the historical figure (I am a professional historian, by the way) and all I was asking for was what I had added to the article about that figure when I wanted to see how it looked as a disambugation page to instead refocus it on the historical figure using the information I had compiled. Ultimately someone went ahead and userfied that content anyway. It would not have been so hard therefore for that to just have happened right off the bat as if no one was opposed to an article on the revolutionary leader then voicing hyperbole opposition in the DRV rather than saying, "okay, let's undelete, but you have to only focus on the historical figure" just seemed weird. And as far as taking that approach, well, given that a day or so earlier it had tremendous success at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arathi, I was naturally encouraged to see what I could do similarly with Commander Dante. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have learned a valuable lesson here: when you ask the community what they think of your actions, you run the very real risk that they will give you an honest answer. In this case, the community has given you a sharp and unambiguous answer that they want you to stop using specious arguments. Whether you take that criticism constructively, or continue down a more troublesome path, is entirely up to you. Nandesuka (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw from a large number of editors was a great deal of dishonesty, mischaracterization, hyperbole, and hypocrisy. I take and will always take honest and fair criticism constructively, but I also consider when it is and is not being made in good faith. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For cutting through the forest of obfuscation and spotting that the tree was rotten and needed to be felled. Truly Wikipedian thinking. **Guy** (Help!) 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

This was said at ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Nandesuka (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Roi and bogus AfD arguments again

He's got a new toy; now, any article with X page views per month is "overwhelmongly" a consensus to keep. Third time I've seen this one in a week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can argue for whatever reason I want. Maybe you should take a look at your own bogus AfD arguments instead of taking the ad hominem approach. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semen images

If you have time to participate and offer your honest opinions regarding the images in the semen article, we would appreciate it. Although one editor seems to have the view that having no image would be beneficial for the article, I don't think that he consciously has censorhsip in mind. Another editor things that four images of semen may be more than necessary -- he may be right about that. Atom (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

Greetings! I'm not trying to cause problems for any user, but I thought that the manner in which this page was saved was improper. (I'm contacting you as you were the closing admin for the AfD.) If an editor wants to userfy the page to work on it, then s/he should do it properly (i.e. ask an admin to do so) to save the edit history, not perform a cut-and-paste job as was done here. I only noticed this page as it was still in the category. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine for this to stay in user space. There's no sense in getting too worked up over a minor process issue. Nandesuka (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fethullah Gülen ‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 : I think it's fine for this to stay in user space.  There's no sense in getting too worked up over a minor process issue.  [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka#top|talk]]) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 ::Okay, no worries.  [[User:Craw-daddy|--Craw-daddy]] &#124; [[User talk:Craw-daddy|T]] &#124; 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+== August 2008 ==
+[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Fethullah Gülen ‎|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on [[:Fethullah Gülen ‎]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)