User talk:Nandesuka

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2

Welcome

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

RFAR

I'm sorry I didn't check my messages sooner, I figured it was someone angry with what I was doing, thus making my temper explode, and just making things worse. And, I saw that rfc and all the talk on IRC about how both sides think it's getting nowhere despite the issue not being resolved, and I thought I just had to jump in or i'd lose the nerve. Please do what you'd like to alter it if you feel that's right. People can see me as a liability in all of this, but I don't. karmafist 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

another Brazil4Linux sock on Xbox

Looks to me that there's another User:Brazil4Linux sockpuppet on Xbox. User:Microsoft Fanboy blanked a section of the talk page that was making note of the similarities between his edits and B4L. I don't really have a doubt that its him, but as I am an editor on and off on Xbox and had clashes with B4L I wanted to get an outside opinion...and you were the one to block him for the 3RR warring last I believe. --Syrthiss 15:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Snark free zone violation

[1]. I say sir, tutt tutt.

Seriously though, there seems to be some sort of consensual mass hallucination going on here. Does this "enough about the boxen already" group actually not see the point that the "it's not about the boxen" folks are making, or do you think that it is purposeful?

brenneman^(t)(c) 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My snark-free offer was rejected, and anyway I was being serious. Nandesuka 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dumb

Some idiots left some messages on your user page bottom, so your aware. 172.171.132.116 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This Person "DL" and Nostradamus: Now he is referring to Jews as "Swine" or Pigs

Dear Nandesuka,

Hi. Listen, I am new to Wikipedia, and you posed a question on the Nostradamus page that I tried to answer. There are some people, I think perhaps a guy named "DL" who is writing all kinds of very inaccurate items on the Nostradamus page. As a scholar on Nostradamus, I've been trying to have a discussion with him, but he's up to something. There are numerous typos, factual errors, and lots of negative POV. Now, in the second paragraph on Nostradamus, in the introduction, he basically refers to Jews as "Swine" or Pigs, via a Spanish translation, and postulates that perhaps Nostradamus was part of a generation that, well, came from pigs. I don't want anything to do with what is going on there, but someone, a Wikipedia editor, or administrator should check this out. I wrote to DL, or whoever it is, that I'm backing off, because I think something very weird is going on and it's getting out of hand. I have a revision that I consider much better, and balanced, and that can be added to by others - but the racist tone, sharp point of views, and errors are just getting really wild there. I hope that something can be done to at least include more intelligent and open-minded material, but the Jewish reference to "swine" was the last straw for me. My nephew uses Wikipedia. Something very strange is going on. I'm taking a break, because it looks a little dangerous and I don't want to be part of that. Theo 14:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

About a particular individual

Alkivar posted a request for an IP check on the individual in question. There's already mountains of other evidence to rely on besides it, but direct IPs would be the last link in the chain. Thanks for your response. Daniel Davis 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

I want you to know

Since you seem to have been the most careful person in the Martin RFC matter, I will post this for you to read. After having put much thought into my comments during my entire time at WP, and much effort into remaining calm under all sorts of provocation, I now see that words, logic, and dispassionate analysis don't matter here. I am most distressed with the archiving of the RFC: the incendiary material there was minor, the useful criticism ample; I am most distressed with the flippancy of the Arbcom, who appear to buy wholesale the argument that the RfC was a "lynchmob". In the first place (and I haven't mentioned this yet in this debate) as someone whose ancestors where actually lynched, I'm upset with that comparison, but that is of little matter; What distresses me so is that no one seems to have listened to those of us who tried, respectfully, to push the community toward open dialogue. So be it.

If you can find my outside view in whatever archive its been stuck, please read it if you haven't. I am now convinced that what I feared will happen. It isn't a possibility -- it is an all-but-inevitable truth of the culture here. WP is run by a glorified message board, with temperments befitting the typical teenage messageboard users. The project is doomed in its current form.

I will make no fuss, and no other posts anywhere, in leaving; I won't tell my closest colleagues here. I only tell you, because, if a moment of community reflection occurs in this mess, and someone asks, "Did WP lose anyone over its refusal to allow real dialogue?", you may use my experience as evidence. I ask you to blank this message when you read it -- I hate drama festivals, and I'd like to leave in total silence, except that I believe some record is important. Thanks for being sensible. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lists and categories

Hello, I have made a compromise proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Proposal_to_make_Jewish_lists_and_categories_historical_only. Regards Arniep 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Let me know when you get tired of me telling you when I'm on IRC. This time I'm on #wikipedia-en. I should be around for about an hour. Hermione1980 23:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect a Clark Kent/Superman thing here as you two appear to never be in the same place at the same time.
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're sockpuppets of each other, but we're really bad at it. :-) Nandesuka 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you still on IRC, mein sockpuppet? :-) Talk about not being in the same place at the same time... Hermione1980 00:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

help with old username

konbanwa nandesuka

i have an old username which i need to remove. i foolished used the same username i have used in employment and it is rather unique. my identity may be exposed and cause me trouble at work. is there any way to alter my old username or remove my old edits?

thanks -OnceUponATimeInChina 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Arigato. Another user just showed me how to request it.

Wikipedia:Changing_username

-OnceUponATimeInChina 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI

[2] Jakew 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a letter by a Wikipedia editor, but published elsewhere, violates NOR? I would argue against it on grounds that it doesn't use or define the central term (and reinterpretation would be OR), and doesn't support anything in the article, but can't agree with you there. Jakew 13:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Once more I think that you're letting your personal animus against me influence your statements on Wikipedia. Having responded exhaustively to your latest statement on my talk page, I noticed that two or three days ago you made similar statements in which you are clearly once again on the campaign trail, clearly once again only interested in denigration. You refer to "inconsequential, trumped up claims" which you say were "given short shrift". I find no evidence of anything resembling this, but even if I could find claims in the workshop that were not fully supported, your use of language here would have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. You are again lapsing into personal attacks.

You say you're happy with the outcome of this case, though to be honest your repeated proclamations of happiness sound more than a little shrill. Well if you are happy, so am I. Let's not fall out over it. It is not in the interests of Wikipedia to use such language about someone who has made honest contributions to an arbitration case and personally drafted substantial parts of over half of the findings of fact adopted by the arbitrators. Arbitration cases are very important decision-making process, don't cheapen them with attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)