User talk:Itake

Help with Translation!?

Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

Albania is also rich in rivers and streams with significant hydroelectric potential. These have been exploited quite effectively, making the country an energy exporter. A number of huge hydroelectric power plants have been built, mainly on the Drin River, and more than half of the country's arable land is irrigated, largely from the artificial reservoirs created upstream of the dams.

--Armour 10:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing

Are you refering to the kd article or to the other one? If you meant the KD article, I just fixed some minor header mistakes that you had made, and on the other article, I added some wikilinks and stub categories. I had no idea that would disturb you. I was just trying to help Wikipedia. (Entheta 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

NP, its just that I got an annoying error when I edited it because someone else had edited it while I was typing. Its no big issue, its done now so you can help me tidy it up if you want Itake 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Violating civility

That's it, you've pushed it too far this time. Continue violating the civility guidelines and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are strong words from a regular user like the rest of us. Aren't you violating the civility guidelines? --Jason Gastrich 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll see you in the area of the blocked people then, Cyde. Itake 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Itake, I hope you're well. I was reading your dialogue with User:Daycd and I have to say that you were right on the money. He can be a single-minded troll and you exposed him. Saying that LBU is a diploma mill exemplifies his POV and reveals that he probably isn't thinking in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Keep in touch. I'd be happy to know you better, brother.

Sincerely, --Jason Gastrich 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

None of these self-righteous tards have wikipedia's best interest at heart. They want to shape this encyclopedia to fit their own world views, and we shouldn't let them. Itake 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need an objectivity lesson. And Itake needs a civility lesson. David D. (Talk) 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the matter, Daycd? Can't you just feel that "Christian" love? - WarriorScribe 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm is my second language little boy. Itake 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm your huckleberry. Show me what you've got. - WarriorScribe 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Come and vote your mind

Dear Christian friend,

I saw you on the list of Christian Wikipedians and wanted to let you know about something. The other day, someone nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion! They include a Christian university list of people (not unlike 68 other lists like it)[1], presidents of universities, and authors of many books.

Since that time, people have been voting. Please take this message as a call to vote; not a call to vote a certain way. I respect you and your ability to come, read the entry, and make a wise decision. In other words, I’m not vote stacking or campaigning; simply letting you know something that you’d probably like to know.

By the way, my friend recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ. If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see the site!

Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

God bless you, Wiggins2 07:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

In response to your message here ... this is your final warning. Stop the personal attacks. --Cyde Weys 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here to warn you about edits like this [2], but I see you've already been warned so I'll just reaffirm what Cyde is telling you. Continued personal attacks, even oblique ones, are not acceptable. FeloniousMonk 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No of course not. Personal attacks are only acceptable when directed against other people, right? Its okay to accuse people of multying, using meatpuppets, being POV etc but not to respond to those attacks? Your POV and bias is getting really tiresome. Go away, and go get a life. Itake 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich is well known for using sockpuppets - see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich - and has attempted to swing consensus his way by recruiting people that he thinks will vote how he wants. Stating this isn't a personal attack. POV accusations are perhaps borderline, as you can't prove someone's opinions as has been extensively done with regards to his sockpuppetry and recruiting. Calling people retards, however, definitely violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Malthusian (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that is a personal attack. The sockpuppet thing is still under investigation obviously, which is why it called "suspected". Whether he is doing "meatpuppetry" is also under investiagation. So yes, then it is personal attacks. Its blatantly doing what should not be acceptable, casting accusations and unfounded criticism. You are pushing a campaign to label this user something he's not, you are trying to make something that is under investigation sound like a cleared up matter. The attacks on mine and Gastrich's religion, the small insinuations that are just borderline insults, That is not okay, and when you stop doing that I will stop the personal attacks myself. Until then, go away. Itake 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So you interpret Matthew 5:39 as not applying to you, then? - WarriorScribe 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the bible have to do with sockpuppets? Is there a point in your rants? Itake 04:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't rant. I simply asked you if Matthew 5:39 applies to you. Try again. - WarriorScribe 05:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It applies to everyone. Itake 05:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask that. I asked if it applies to you. Yes or no. - WarriorScribe 05:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) is a menace to religious people, so don't fall for his nonsense. He's been harrassing Christians on Usenet for awhile. See here for chronicles of his miserable behavior. [3]

You don't owe him an answer. Pray for him. God will be taking care of him for eternity unless he sees the light. --Jason Gastrich 05:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but you do owe me an answer. If nothing else, try to remember that I'm not the only one reading. You'd do well to stay as far from Gastrich as possible. He's an established liar, as we've shown here countless times. By all means, read his stolen-domain-name messages, but be sure to read the rebuttals. Of course, the bit about God taking care of me "for eternity" is the sort of empty threat someone like Gastrich will make. But the fact is that you owe me an answer. Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you or not? You know, Gastrich won't answer that one, either. - WarriorScribe 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, it applies to everyone. I eat debate-happy atheists for breakfast, Dave. This is the internet, Dave. You have no chance of going at people for their religion in the same way you can do IRL. I could just start ignoring you if I wanted, Dave. But lets discuss the empty threats, because I agree with Gastrich there. Of course, it doesn't matter wheter you belive its an empty threat or not, because the empty threat belives in you. Itake 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask that. I asked if it applies to you. Answer the question. Save the speeches for another time. By the way, I'm not an atheist, and having been on the receiving end of boastful commentary such as yours, and having subsequently sent those boasters running home to mommy, I'm not impressed with your debate record, either. So just answer the question. It'll go easier on you. Does it apply to you? Yes or no. What are you afraid of? - WarriorScribe 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question. Unless you live in another world where the meaning of the word "everyone" is different. If you do, its time to return to the real world. I did not make any speeches, I told you the truth. You can choose to ignore it and boast about your debate record, but it is still of course the truth. Atheist, anti-christian, whatever. It really doesn't interest me which category you place yourself in. So once again, what is the point of your rant? Itake 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked you if it specifically applies to you. Why can't you write "yes" or "no?" Trying to claim that it applies to "everyone" is avoidance. For one thing, it doesn't apply to everyone. Not everyone believes in the Bible. Your attempt to apply it as you have is an attempt to avoid your own specific responsibility to the beliefs to which you claim to ascribe (but which your behavior shows to be a fraud). One more time: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you or not? - WarriorScribe 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You must think that I'm not so bright or something. There is nothing avoiding in my answer, I answered your question already. This is the internet, not your home, so we don't play by your rules Dave. I don't have to shape my answers to suit you. Like I said, wheter you belive in the bible or not doesn't mean anything. Its still there, and the text in it still applies to everyone because when the time comes, everyone will be judged by those standards. Now if you were a priest, an educated theologist, or even christian I might choose to discuss my own religious beliefs with you. But since you're not, I won't. So your opinion on wheter I violate the rules in the bible or not don't really interest me, because you won't be the one doing the judging in the end. Itake 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance and irrelevancies noted. One more time: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you or doesn't it? Yes or no. - WarriorScribe 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Spock, you got your answer. Its clear you don't want to discuss anymore when its you thats on the defensive. Itake 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You are seriously deluded. It's a simple enough question. Why can't you answer it directly? "Yes" or "no," does Matthew 5:39 apply to you? - WarriorScribe 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We are now reaching the point where I'm beginning to question your intelligence, and if you are even capable of understanding simple sentences in English. You got your answer, and I won't give you the satisfaction of repeating it. But it is interesting how defensive you get whenever this conversation gets to being about you instead. Perhaps you've got something you'd like to share with us? Itake 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mine is hardly a defensive position. I am asking a simple question, and you are avoiding it. You are free to question my intelligence or anything else that you so desire, but without something to back it up, it's just noise. I asked you a very simple question, and I suspect that you know exactly why that question was so specific. That is why you're avoiding it. Here's the chance to redeem yourself a bit and see if you can truly take Christian responsibility: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you? Yes or no. - WarriorScribe 19:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Redempetion does not come from your hands, Dave. And I've got something to back my question up, you can't read. If you could read, you would have seen the numerous entries where I already stated my answer. Since you can't understand that, I have to assume you are lacking brains somewhere. Itake 19:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance and speech-making noted, again. Let's recall that this is about your statement that, as long (what you perceive as) personal attacks continue, you will continue to engage in personal attack. I ask again: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you? I've got all the time that will be needed. - WarriorScribe 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you have alot of free time is noted, but I won't speculate into what might be the cause of that. Matthew 5:39 applies to everyone. Itake 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Veiled and rather pathetic attempt at an insult noted. Does Matt. 5:39 apply to you? - WarriorScribe 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you talk like that IRL, it might be a reason as to why you have so much time to dedicate to pointless internet squabbles. There can only be one Spock, Dave. I don't have that time, however. Itake 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have plenty of time to avoid the question, when a simple "yes" or "no" would have taken care of it hours ago. Does Matt. 5:39 apply to you? - WarriorScribe 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He already answered your question. You know what the word "everyone" means, right? --Jason Gastrich 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I request this conversation be aborted, per WP:CIV. By posting that comment, I am supporting neither side of the debate. Sycthos^Talk 21:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - WarriorScribe 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. Itake 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for 24 hours from editing for violating WP:NPA despite previous warnings. FeloniousMonk 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

We'l see about that. Itake 04:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Stop blanking Cyde's warnings on the Gastrich AfDs. They are perfectly valid. If you disagree, talk to him or take it to the talk page of the AfDs, don't interfere with his comments. --Malthusian (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you show me exactly where the concensus on that was reached? Where did everyone agree that they were perfectly valid? Did the discussion about the "suspicions" end, and did everyone agree that it was infact a fact? I didn't think so. Itake 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is a consensus needed? It is a statement of fact. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking hard and I see no-one disputing that Wiggins2 is a sockpuppet, apart from Jason Gastrich's incredibly weak claim that Wiggins is just a friend. Oh, and you, of course. His contributions consist entirely of vote recruiting (in Gastrich's initimable style) and edit warring over The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, promoting Gastrich's book. He is Gastrich. --Malthusian (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm, still my second language. Point proven. Itake 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you used a strange counter example when you say "This AfD processed as been disrupted by atheist users". It is documented that Gastrich e-mailed people with inclusionist and christian info boxes on their user page. Such a warning up front is warrented when such an AfD is manipulated in this way. There was no mention of any specific users in the text. All it said was "soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep". In that context "others" could, and does, imply anyone. Yet, in your edit summary you imply that atheists would vote delete. Did you know there are atheists who have voted keep? There are also inclusionists that have voted delete. Your argument is not valid and the warning is perfectly reasonable. For your information I did not put the warning up. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. There is no concensus that the AfD was "manipulated" by Gastrich's emails. There's still a discussion on that aswell, because enlightening users about interesting disputes isn't manipulation. Stop pretending like these things are solid facts. My "argument" is an example of what would also be a POV saturated intro. My argument against the current intro is just that, its POV saturated. The first intro is perfectly okay, its an official wikipedia policy and it warns the user that this topic has some problems. The other however, is nothing but pure POV bias. Itake 00:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich RfC

Also you may be interested that there is an RfC against Gastrich. I think your opinion should be heard. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It will. Itake 00:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I believe you're confusing Wikipedia:Consensus with wikt:consensus. In AfD, a supermajority is generally considered consensus. With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination), out of all the participants, 53 people felt that the article did not deserve to exist (42 delete + 11 merge), as compared to 18 keeps (or 54–25 if all the votes I discounted are included, which is greater than a 2:1 ratio). I believe that's a pretty fair consensus. And honestly, this article was such an obvious merge candidate I don't see what the fuss is all about. By moving it into the Louisiana Baptist University article, the content is still available for anyone to see. With all due respect, you're making mountains out of molehills here. howcheng {chat} 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you moved the contents of the page to the Louisiana Baptist University article. If the content is still there, merged, its okay. Itake 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Easier said than done since Louisiana Baptist University is currently locked. Although it could be put on the talk page. David D. (Talk) 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it, because the consensus was to delete, but I can undelete the content for you or someone else to do the merge. howcheng {chat} 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this will be appreciated. If you can paste it into the Talk:Louisiana Baptist University (or directly into the page, since you're an admin), this will be good. --207.200.116.202 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Itake, if you can show me where I've violated any Wikipedia policy against you or Jason Gastrich then I'll apologize. I really don't think I have. I don't think I've attacked your religion either. Durova 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Angående FeloniousMonk

Se upp för den här personen. Jag, och andra som mig, har också haft problem med honom. Läs den här diskussionen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Turkmen

Jag har också varit blockerad av honom. Jag vill inte säga vad jag egentligen tycker om honom, för om han får veta det, blir det 24h igen. Ha det. --Candide, or Optimism 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Investigating your block

I understand you have been blocked and am creating these links to look into the situation. I am not implying that you are a vandal, just using a piece of coding. Itake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fred Bauder 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems your email to the list was delayed and your block is ancient history. I hope you are doing OK now and avoiding personal attacks and incivility. Fred Bauder 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Abusive admins

Hey Itake, I see that you're vocal about the poor behavior of certain admins. Add User:JzG to your list. He keeps deleting all kinds of great, informative information about LBU. He has no reason at all, except he says so. And he has banned people for disagreeing with them and accused many of being sockpuppets without any evidence. It's truly wretched behavior. --Turkmen 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh he's on my list alright. Itake 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Gastrich, if Guy didn't have evidence before he certainly has now with that brilliantly subtle post. Excuse us Itake, just passing through. --Malthusian (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Itake, the nonsense continues. Now User:JzG won't respond on the talk page, but hijacks the LBU entry, reverting all contributions, saying consensus must be reached. Consensus has been reached, at least on expanding the notable alumni to match other university entries. This guy is outta control. --Turkmen 10:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(Turkmen is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich RfC

Itake, there is a proposal for resolution active at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. As the sole defender of Gastrich (a brave move for which I salute you, even if I do think you are being naive - I've been there myself with Bonaparte) you may wish to contribute. Consensus appears to be that he should stop using sockpuppets, play nicely and try to get along. An immediate and permanent block was mooted by some admins in other discussions, but I don't think that's right: he does have some history of good-faith edits to counterbalance the vanity and the snow-job on LBU. The proposed resolution will allow him to continue contributing as long as Mr. Ego takes a back seat. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

List

Thanks for writing. I did read the discussion pages on those articles, but I disagree that it should be off site. You may want the only source of this list to be on your website, but most others would disagree. I saw a few people saying, there should be an independent list, so make one. I did.

I'm going to restore the sites that I put up there originally. I'm not sure which are dead, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered. THe other two are geopolitical simulations based on the first sentence of the wikipedia article on that subject, "A true Geo-Political web-based simulator is a nation-simulation game in which players take the roles of leaders of nations or organizations"

Thanks for your interest in my post. I look forward to your active constructive work on making the list better.Joe 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Response given on the list's talkpage. Itake 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

oh really?

Conservata veritate

ya rly. Itake 03:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Were you contacted by anyone to vote in the AfD?

Hello, I am curious if anyone contacted you asking you to particpate in the AfD of the TRACS schools? Arbusto 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I'm curious what the most efficient way to get you off my talk page would be. In short, I'm not interested. I've already been in a dispute similar to this one, with the attempt by a cabal of wikipedia editors who used everything from abusing mod powers to scare tactics to remove the List of Louisiana Baptist University People article. I don't have the time nor the dedication to enter another AfD dispute again. I'm tired of you people and your ways, and in time people will no doubt know wikipedia for what it really is. Itake 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes or no? Arbusto 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now why would I give you the satisfaction of answering a question? Itake 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)