User talk:Kyorosuke

Attention!- We need more happiness aroud here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Wikipedia community. Don't just be civil, be forward. Congratulate people when they do a good job, no matter what it is. Too many people have left Wikipedia. Let's not let the rest go, too. If you ever feel stressed, or are at all worried about something, please leave a message for me at my talk page. I want to listen, I want to talk, but, most importantly, I want everybody to feel better!

In the event you're here with a personal attack:
"The seed of pleasure is pain, the seed of pain is pleasure."
Japanese proverb

For older discussions see User talk:Sean Black/Archives

Ten top trivia tips about Sean Black [1]

1. Plato believed that the souls of melancholy people would be reincarnated into Sean Black.
2. Three seagulls flying overhead are a warning that Sean Black is near.
3. Ancient Chinese artists would never paint pictures of Sean Black!
4. The pupil of an octopus's eye is shaped like Sean Black.
5. Human beings are the only animals that copulate while facing Sean Black.
6. The pigment Indian Yellow was manufactured from the urine of cows fed only on Sean Black!
7. Sean Black has often been found swimming miles from shore in the Indian Ocean!
8. The horns of Sean Black are made entirely from hair.
9. 68 percent of all UFO sightings are by Sean Black.
10. If you lace Sean Black from the inside to the outside, the fit will be snugger around your big toe.

Jonah Ayers

Thanks for your note, and for helping with this problem. I'm not sure why people would be uncomfortable with blocking the sock puppets of vandals. Jonah Ayers is not just a vandal, he's an obsessed editor who has barely made any useful edits outside of one article, and who has engaged in extreme harassment of other editors. I do think that blocking the socks as they appear is necessary, and that the user will eventually stop trying. If there is a better solution then I'm anxious to hear it. -Will Beback 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell

I am somewhat puzzled. I think that we can agree to disagree, but I am not sure exactly about what. You refer to an editor has regained her senses. Do you mean SlimVirgin, after her encounter with FuelWagon, or Gmaxwell, whom I thought was in the masculine gender?

I have regained my senses? Strongly disagree!! ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Go regain your senses. You were one of the best editors we ever had until you became mad because they poisoned you. Take the EDTA. It will remove the heavy metals from your body that were used by the Cabal to try to poison you, and then you will be sane again. Robert McClenon 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. Erm, I think ... ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree respectfully as to whether FuelWagon was a constructive editor. He was. He undermined his cause by his fixation on ancient wrongs, but he was a constructive editor. He then did more harm than good, much more harm.

I have received personal attacks from both Gmaxwell and FuelWagon. The ones from Gmaxwell, over a single vote, have been far harsher. We can disagree.

I think that we should agree to disagree. FuelWagon could have been a very valuable editor if he had listened to my advice. Gmaxwell can be a productive editor, but after he has ordered me to leave Wikipedia, I have no intention of giving him advice.

I am not young any more. I do not appreciate being given orders by teenagers like Gmaxwell. FuelWagon did not give me any orders. Gmaxwell did. I tried to be a father-figure to FuelWagon before he spit at me. I have no intention of being a father-figure to a teenager who comes out of nowhere to spit at me.

Why don't we agree to disagree? Robert McClenon 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah... If only your post were correct, to be a teenager again would be quite fun. :) On a more serious note, I can assure you that my criticism of your vote was of the most impersonal sort possible. In any any case, cheers. --Gmaxwell 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I will take that as an apology, and accept it. Robert McClenon 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoo, reconcilliation! Group hug!--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN?? what is going on?

some sort of perverted wheel war? someone keeps deleting it, then restoring it, then deleting it again?--64.12.116.137 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Sean Black! I hope you're trying to restore the page now, because it's taking way too long to load on my computer. In the future, would you mind not deleting pages with large page histories? (such as this page and George W. Bush) The deletion and restoration takes a huge strain on the server; instead, please contact a developer directly, who can then effortlessly remove the edit from the database. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I'm glad that Ral was able to take care of it. (The page wasn't loading properly on my computer, being a bit big :-) ) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And apparently, if we both do it ten minutes after each other it screws up Wikipedia. Like, hax0red. I think we deserve a barnstar.... :-) Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinktulip

Hi there. I noticed you blocked Pinktulip. First thank-you very much as he had been harassing me. You might also look at User:Fplay and User:Emact who are two of his socks. Finally, he's editing as anon right now, User:67.127.58.57, and left me a nasty talk post. Marskell 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I happened to notice this note. Yes, this user seems odd. A current project seems to be adding into a category every article that mentions Terri Schiavo. Our discussion of the matter was not symmetrically lucid. -Will Beback 11:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

All of them should be blocked if they haven't already; drop me an email and we'll talk more if you like. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Look!

I finally put my picture on my user page. Now if that makes you drool, we're going to need to have a little talk. lol --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My Welcome Template

Well, we could turn it into a redirect into whatever the template is on my user space. It's on hundreds, if not thousands of pages, and i'm not going to go to them all.

And speaking of which, if there isn't a way I can make a template on user space (or whatever you'd call it when you can just place two brackets on each side of a word to put something in) that has the same thing or something similiar, i'll just "Tony Tantrum" it and create the template in a day or two. I'd prefer not to do that, but considering that Wikipedia's rules, particularly in regards to deletion process, are near worthless nowadays, I don't particularly care.

Hell, who knows? Maybe it'll finally be the slow inexorable end to my many valuable contributions here. I've been having alot of nightmares about Jimbo and his minions lately. Karmafist 12:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ESS-inc

Thanks for the welcome note and the assist ^^ ESS-Inc 02:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm so 733t. The first time I use rollback, it's an accident, and pointless to boot. But hey, your userpage needs underscores, man!
brenneman^{T}{L} 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Happy Valentine's day!

Don't despair this Valentine's day Sean Black! And don't explode either! :P Happy Valentine's day!--Shanel 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Hey, Sean. Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. (And thanks for your earlier nomination offer — it took me a while to get over my reluctance.) I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me.

(And yes, I did steal shamelessly from your RfA thanks with that link.)—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A Valentine's Poem for you

Ode on a Knicker Drawer

Thou still unravish’d garment of quietness,

Thou foster-child of Cotton and fun Time,

Human historian, who can thus express

A forbidden tale more sweetly than our rhyme:

What lycra-fringed legend haunts about thy shape

Of hips or buttock, or both.

In drawer or the dales of IRC?

What thongs or briefs are these? What slim virgins loth?

What mad panty raid? What struggle to escape?

What hi-cuts and hipsters? What wild bikinis male bikini-wearing? <- OMG Personal Attack! Personal Attack!

O curvy shape! Fair derrière with brede

Of marble nudes and Rubens girls wrought.

With velvet drapes and the sudden need;

Thou, silent form! Dost tease us out of thought

As doth eternity: Hot sex Cabal!

When old age shall this generation waste,

Thou shalt remain, worn out of other woe

Than ours, a friend to woman, to whom thou say’st,

‘Knickers are beauty, beauty knickers, -- that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’

pschemp | talk 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced images

• Optimus Prime image edit

Can I ask what the copyright problem there is? There are several pics from the TF TV show on the site. I added one more. I took it with my own screen grabber. So I need to type up something diffferently when I upload it? mathewignash

• Optimus continued

I obviously am not uploading images correctly for someone, but no one will tell me what I DO need to do. Please either tell me specifically what I need to do to properly tell the copyright status is of something, or stop removing my pics. Thanks. mathewignash

• Optimus Continued...

Why shouldn't I readd my pictures if they are useable, I just didn't tage them correctly. How do I change the tag? I've read it over and over, but no one will explain it in plain english. WHERE the heck do I add things like tv-screenshot? In text on the page for Optimus Prime, or when I upload it in one of the boxes?

Your non-offer of assistance

Your non-offer of assistance is also greatly non-appreciated. :-P Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentines Day!

♥ Happy Valentines Day! ♥ May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Quadell

Edit 5,001

Congratulations. You are the proud recipient of Bastique's 5,000th edit! It's good luck for the coming year. Like pigeon poop on the head, annoying to clean, but ultimately fortuitous. Woohoo!

For prosperity. 03:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And now, a musical number...

In the mornin', in the evenin', ain't we got trolls? Sing it with me... · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are out of line

Sean, your attempt to censor the discussion at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche is inappropriate. Wikipedia policy permits the removal of personal attacks, but the material you removed is of an entirely different nature. The methods of Cberlet and SlimVirgin in the LaRouche articles have been highly propagandistic, and harmful to Wikipedia; you seem to wish to suppress any discussion of this, and this appears to be a form of POV pushing on your part. --HK 16:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to stick to the Wikipedia policy framework. Wikipedia policy allows you to remove personal attacks; it does not allow you to generally remove opinions with which you disagree. And I find your interpretation of the Arbcom decision to be highly original. It says I may not edit those articles, or their talk pages. It doesn't say I may not read them. --HK 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: it appears to me that you are anxious to suppress any discussion of Chip Berlet as a reputable source. You and your allies SlimVirgin, WillBeback/Willmcw and Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer have repeated over and over that Chip Berlet is an outstanding source; Cberlet also extolls his own virtues, and it is clear that he has allies on the ArbCom that will attempt to shield him from criticism at Wikipedia. However, out there in the real world, things are different. Just as an experiment, try looking for cites on Google news for "Chip Berlet to see how much in demand his "expertise" is, nowadays. Visitors from the real world are bound to comment on Wikipedia's extraordinary promotion of Chip Berlet, and I think it would be most beneficial for Wikipedia to allow these voices to be heard, rather than declaring the topic to be taboo. --HK 23:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

HK, your nostalgia for the golden days of our editing relationship has clouded your memory somewhat. It was your edits the arbcom ruled were propagandistic and harmful to Wikipedia, which is why they banned you from editing LaRouche pages. What Sean is doing is asking people to focus on content, rather than make personal attacks against contributors, something you yourself might try too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And SlimVirgin admonishing others about personal attacks takes today's Irony Prize. --HK 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Herschel, you're projecting again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea both for Herschel to concentrate on content and Sean to keep the fuck out of it. Deleting comments is out of order, regardless of your view of their validity, unless they are personal attacks tout court. Even then, WP:RPA is a guideline, not an injunction. It just inflames disputes to give the impression that you are trying to silence one side without giving them a say.

But Herschel, regardless of your personal view of SlimVirgin, you won't achieve anything by insulting her. You need to recognise that. -- Grace Note.

Here is the scholar source

Hello. so you don't want to support Jagjg for a mediation of the palestinian exodus article... I understand ;-)

But you are the mediator for war of 1948, aren't you ? ;-)

"The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East", Hannah Arendt [2], Eichmann in Jerusalem, p. 13. [3]

I assume you know Annah Arendt. If not, there is the wiki link or google (H)annah Arendt. I gathered all other sources here [4] and I highly suggest a look at the caricature.

This has of course no reason to be in the war of 1948 article but I didn't agree the truth is not respected. I also think this shows that Heptor should not be blamed by ArbCom.

Sorry for that poisonned gift ;)

Christophe Greffe 01:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I am myselft already too much involved. Hope to meet you soon in another article of common interest. Christophe Greffe 07:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the LaRouche page

Sean, I said in that I would not concern myself with the matter any longer. You should also address the personal attacks of others, see the discussion. My time is wasted in that type of stuff so I am moving on. I stand behind my statement though and have made my concerns known to Wikimedia the parent of this site. I do hope they address what is going on. --Northmeister 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I've read your concerns. I have no intention of disruption. If you wish to discuss this matter or know more about me then feel free to email me. I feel my questions I originally posted were in good faith and then I was attacked. I responded inappropriatly for a discussion page but I am new to this. I have already contact Wikimedia though about certain concerns of mine. I am only here to help and became interested in the page in question due to allegations made against my other edits of topics I have a degree and interest in. --Northmeister 05:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-17 Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche -Will Beback 10:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NOES

I'm sorry, you are a great editor but you do not own these pages. Why do you persist on deleting sections that you deam as "unnecessary"? You do not have the right to deem them as so. It is the duty of everyone to present topics to the discussion board that they feel are inappropriate for the page and have a discussion as to whether others agree with this feeling or not. Unless it is pure vandalism it should be talked about and voted on by more than just one individual who deems it unnecessary. Bignole 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC) That is exactly my point. If you disagree use the talk page, is this not what you said on my talk page? That applies to article pages as well. If you disagree about the taglines then use the talk page to discuss it. Why should you be the only one to say that it should not be there. If others find that it could be of some relevance than it should stay. Correct? Bignole 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

AH

Why did you fully protect Adolf Hitler? Wyss 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the article tagged as "fully protected" when in fact signed-in editors can edit it? Str1977 13:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Village pump edits

Text was moved to the template. --Pascal666 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Using edit summaries would have avoided this problem. --Golbez 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, wanted to get all the pages done before anyone complained about the duplicate text. Didn't occur to me the opposite could be a problem. Sorry. --Pascal666 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)