User talk:Erachima

This page is archived every 25 topics, by the removal of the oldest 25 topics.

Archives

1 Perm. link 1

Thank you very very much for your contribution to the Kiddy Grade article. I don't wish to scare from editing, but the articles are going through AfD, and may be up for deletion. While that is occurring, the pages have to stay as they are, the formatting can change, but we can't move them around. I am sorry for this, I agree with this change, just not yet. --Crampy20 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that you replied on the discussion page, don't mind my revert comment then. This is no original research but general balkan knowledge (the ottomans relocated major amounts of Serbians), let the version be there for the other active users to see, after that we can compromise. Greetings! Bosoni

The Ichigo Kurosaki article uses those arc names (Hollow arc and Soul Society arc) and List of Bleach episodes uses names similar to them in its list. I think the Soul Society arc is a valid name for the arc but I agree that "Hollow arc" is not informative enough as an arc name. I'm currently writing Ishida's synopsis for the rest of the Soul Society arc. Can I at least use "Soul Society arc" as its name?--Gdo01 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting guide, On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. The problem is, people always want "their" site to appear. Thus, it is sometimes better not to show any fan site at all, and let the casual user to find them by himself.

When choosing which fan sites to stay, I usually consider forum posts and membership, creation date, updates, Alexa ranking and whether they comply with the extra style guide. Considering this:

• http://www.awbunker.com/: 435349 posts, 1860 members, Alexa rank 214,725.
• http://awbw.amarriner.com/: 99209 posts, 3432 members, Alexa rank 236,186, launched on December 3, 2004
• http://www.awrev.com/: 45,866 posts, 597 members, Alexa rank 1,160,855, launched on August 20, 2005
• http://www.advancewarsnet.com/: 410,742 posts, 1,979 members, Alexa rank 756,430, launched on 10/02/01
• http://www.gamefaqs.com/: Gamefaqs

We should choose one or two only. Remember, we are editors, so we should not care what someone in any of those forums say about a determined site being in a link here. From this data, I would either leave the Gamefaqs link using {{GameFAQs}}, or leave the most active site, awbunker.com. We could add another, awbw.amarriner.com (more members and better Alexa rank) or advancewarsnet.com (more active).

I don't really care which ones we should choose. My goal is to keep the articles with as few external links as possible. We can bend the guidelines, one or two, maybe three, but having four or more is abusing our ability to link. A casual user may want to learn something else from a link. He is not going to click the five links to research, so we should minimize the bother of having to do so -- ReyBrujo 05:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with either option. We could say that, since GameFAQs has its own template at Wikipedia, it may not "count" as fan site, but instead as an information site that can't be used as reference (as it is mostly fan-made). People will always complain, will always ask why their site isn't around. We are not supposed to determine which sites should be included, instead they should claim notability, give proofs, and suggest. Unluckily, people just add the links no matter the amount of warnings. -- ReyBrujo 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with fans, they don't read warnings. The main problem is that the Official and Unofficial sections shouldn't be split with ===, but instead with ;. This way, there will be only an Edit link at the beginning of the External links section, and when they click it, they will be forced to read the warning. If there are three Edits sections (one at the External link header, another at the Official and another at the Unofficial links), we would be forced to add the note in all three places at the same time. -- ReyBrujo 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sequence of personal attacks and wrongful warnings by the banned user InterestedParticipant, since removed. If you want to see them for some reason, you can find them here. --tjstrf 01:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the definition of vandalism (see WP:3RR and WP:Vandalism), neither the adding of tags nor the removal of tags is simple vandalism. Take care. SighSighSigh 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. WP:VANDAL#Types of vandalism lists "Improper use of dispute tags" as a common form of vandalism. --tjstrf 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of tags may be vandalism, (it also may not be and removal of tags may also be vandalism), but neither is simple vandalism that exempts one from the 3RR, even if it's determined to be vandalism. I just saw one of your edit summaries on the Homelessness article making that claim, which I agree that the article is a total mess. SighSighSigh 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

OK, all is cool. I just saw your summary and I was bit confused :). SighSighSigh 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said as much on your talk page. My original statement was based on a misunderstanding of your meaning. I thought you meant that spamming dispute tags was not vandalism, which it most definitely is. After reviewing my edit summary, I realized my mistake. I would also argue that, given the circumstances, this particular instance was blatant vandalism, but that's beside the point. Thanks for the correction. --tjstrf 23:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering what the reason is you deleted my addition the article about the Stormtrooper Effect. In my opinion it was a perfectly reasonable addition. You deleted my addition, but I didn't find why. Could you please explain, or otherwise just put it back? (RagingR2 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I read your reply on my talk page. Thanks for replying. As for the Matrix: well, my point wasn't so much about that film, it merely used it as an example to illustrate the manifestation i was describing. But maybe if there's so much discussion about that particular series of films, then maybe it's a bad example indeed and it should not be used as an example in the article. On a sidenote, I read the discussion about the Matrix having or not having the Stormtrooper Effect, and frankly I think what I described was a different issue. I wasn't talking about Neo being able to fight agents so easily, because here I agree that's part of the story and in that sense doesn't really qualify as the stormtrooper effect. My point was specifically about the issue of agents being seen waiting their turn to fight proponents in some scenes in the film, which I think *does* qualify as the Stormtrooper Effect, even when the story of the film provides a general explanation for Neo's strength. But as I said, I merely used the Matrix as an example of the bad-guys-waiting-their-turns-issue, and I suppose other examples might do just as well, such as the scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 I was talking about. Personally, I'm more in favour of using examples that everyone can agree with, than going through the whole process of finding outside sources to prove your point. I think the examples are not that important, after all they're just examples. It's the manifestation that counts. I didn't think the bad-guys-waiting-their-turns issues was already covered in the article, that's why I added it, and I hope it won't be necessary to provide outside sources to justify adding this manifestation to the list, I'm sure everyone who's seen a few films has seen it a few times. Let me know what you think. Greetings, (RagingR2 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for thinking about it. I'd like to talk about it privately, please contact me on MSN at ynhockey at hotmail dot com, or tell me that you only have ICQ/AIM/YIM (in which case I'll install a client...), or e-mail at ynhockey at gmail dot com. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMIB and this other guy, the one word I can associate with them is "bully". They think that they can get away with telling people that their opinions hold no weight in this matter and delete an article. Both of the users are trying to make up reasons for the article to be deleted. The first was that it was of low quality and beyond repair, the second was (and this is the worst) is that a result of keep can result in a redirect, on the basis that redirect votes add to keep, not delete and the third one is that it is unsourcable and should be deleted - unlike the majority of articles which have no sources. There is no logic to this. They didn't create ^{[citation needed]} for fun. I'm not in the mood to be polite with people who aren't interested in acknowledging any other view but their own. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was as careful as possible to add more information, not delete any as well as maintaining as strict NPOV as possible. If you want to discuss specifics, that would be helpful, but mass rv isn't helpful in this case. --NThurston 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Tite Kubo The Legend of Luke Super Famicom Wars Zanbatō Carnation (color) Toshiyuki Morikawa Static (Bleach album) Noriaki Sugiyama Naseby Field White King Lord Brocktree (book) Playboy Enterprises Masakazu Morita Famicom Wars Whitebeard (Edward Newgate) Mattimeo (book) Katrina Holden Bronson Rie Kugimiya Downer (song)

Cleanup Gantz Berserk (manga) Xe (pronoun) Merge Redwall Online Community Tellius Photographic developer Add Sources Samurai Jack YUI Fansub Wikify List of rock musicals Gamestotal.com Torrefazione Italia Expand Prediction The Dreaming (comics) Henshin

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm compiling a list of all known mistranslations in Bleach scanlations which somehow affect the storyline or distort facts. So far I've got the following:

Common

• Soi Fong, Fong Shaolin -> Soifon, Fon Shaolin

Jūni

• Chapter 205, page 18: The dye slowly dissipates -> The dye slowly fills in

Manga Rain

• Chapter 51, page 11: boss's only relative -> boss's close friend
• Chapter 118, page 8: few hundred years -> over a hundred years
• Chapter 122, page 1: 11th Division 10th Seat (about Aramaki) -> 10 years spent in 11th Division

Basically if you know any others, please let me know. This list probably won't be good for any articles on Wikipedia but could serve as a reference for editors.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't forget to vote here - some newbie nominated the article for deletion. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it may have been changed, but a while ago refs also had popup bubbles with the Name field in them, so it was important to have a name. I guess this no longer applies.

By the way, what about the mistranslations? Do you know any? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you worded your comment on my user page. I have now removed the fictitious boxes and have left the genuine ones. As you can see I really am deaf but I cannot pilot a plane that was just me experimenting.--Lucy-marie 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the user talk page for the user Samuel Blanning, I left a comment about the Amy Macdougall-Barone page not being linked to by typing in Amy Barone. I guess thanks for doing it. But I am actually fairly new to Wikipedia. Well, at least I'm fairly new with editing content, and do not completely have it down. I would have much more appreciated it if you had just told me how to do it instead of actually doing it yourself. Because now, I still don't exactly understand how do redirect.

If possible, could you respond to this on my talk page. I'll be looking at my page, and not this one.Free-encyclopedia 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks a lot for telling me how to do it, but it also wasn't that bad that you did it yourself, as long as you still had room available for me to practice myself. Actually, this could be looked at almost as a metaphor for Wikipedia itself. You did the changes to make the article better, but I will now make the changes based on something you suggested ... and we were communicating via somebody else's talk page! This website, where you can change any article, is also a great source for communication and information, and I think this is a great example of how three users got together to help make one page better.Free-encyclopedia 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they should be referred to as porcupines. While the guide calls them hedgehogs, guides can be wrong. I mean, we have a porcupine reference in the English version (which would logically be there for a reason), and them being referred to as porcupines in the European version, which is not only as important, but is actually more so, considering Animal Crossing WW in EU has either outsold or is going to outsell the NA version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, I'm tired right now and kept messing up the syntax! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You told me how to redirect the Amy Macdougall-Barone page, to make it so that if you typed it without capital letters it would redirect, or something like that. Anyway, it appears somebody has already done that. So I did it with a different page ... which I created, I might add! (Both pages, I created; the new page, and the redirect.) Anyway, check it out. Tech Buzz Game Somebody on the discussion page had suggested changing the title to 'Tech Buzz Game,' because that is what it is 'officially' called. So I did this. Thanks, tjs ... well, whatever your username is. Free-encyclopedia 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr Philip Attiya. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I copy your words onto the user's talk page or you could? I personally stopped responding since it is not all that important to me though it might be more important to others.Gdo01 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do that then. --tjstrf 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is there a policy on the usage of sub-headers within talk? why people do not use them? I do not know if it is good, or bad practice/why it would be bad practice. User:Yy-bo 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what do you mean? Does my suggestion in some way smell like an instruction? Your suggestion makes sense to me, I'm simply trying to make the text so understandable that editors who use English as a second language can not fail to understand the idea of WP:NPOV Terryeo 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comment to my discussion page and responded to it there. In general though, may I let you know? A number of editors follow me around and almost any edit or discussion page comment I make, immediately and brashly state what they think my statement (or edit) means. So I understand, yeah, you are real sure that any word I put on the page has one and only one purpose. And for sure, any of those persons whom you talk with with take every opportunity to tell you that again and again. However, just to let you know, it is just barely possible, isn't it, that I like to steak and potatoes just like the next guy, you know what I mean? Terryeo 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with, Clarity is best achieved through simplicity. Full expoundment of an idea for clarity is only necessary if people are not understanding the simple form. Which is why I introduced the idea of two sentences instead of a sentence with a tag end which introduces a slightly different, but ajoining idea. Your separating the two into two sentences, [1] seems like a solid idea to me. Terryeo 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. At any rate that announcement has absolutely nothing to do with CVU, but the reasoning seems to be that the "VIE" page was the cause of deletion of the CVU (even though the CVU appears to have been undeleted, so I'm not sure what he's worried about). I don't know how CVU treats such things, but it's basically an overreaction based upon a misunderstanding. HAND! >Radiant< 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm about to log off for the night, but if you don't mind, could you keep an eye on the CVU page for a while so it doesn't get overly panicky? We're having a decent discussion on VIE's talk page and comments are welcome, but panic simply doesn't help anyone. I wish I had a WikiBloodpressureMonitor invokable on other users. Thanks! >Radiant< 23:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment; his comments were deliberately rude, and the additions of tags at the top of that article were pure WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is clear you have had problems understanding Wikipedia policy, as it is also clear from our previous discussion a couple weeks ago and your not-so-sound advice on Jayjg's talk page. SighSighSigh 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His advice was good; please stop placing spurious and uncivil warnings on my Talk: page, and please stop violating WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that - please do not disrupt Wikipedia by adding bogus warning to people's talk pages. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we're looking at different definitions or something, but article consistancy is exactly my reason for changing "Gomu Gomu" to "Gum Gum". Having Luffy's attacks being called "Gum Gum" whatever at one point in the article and then "Gomu Gomu" at another point will just confuse the reader. And yeah, you're probably the 5th person or so to comment on me not archiving my talk page. I'm just lazy. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then you're saying you'd rather have the articles be full of inconsistant naming until the series ends? The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:ANIME policy? I saw the discussion page. It seems like the editors have not reached consensus over what the policy means. WhisperToMe 02:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

":Like I said there, if it ment "use the Official english version no matter what", then that clause has no point in existance. It HAS to mean "fans determine the usage"." - Wikipedia was not just written for fans of a given series. It was also written for average Joes who have no prior knowledge of a subject. Also keep in mind that not all fans of a given television show are part of the long-standing fan culture of the original shows. See, on Wikipedia, one must try to consider what works best for the broader audience. The average Joe probably will be exposed to One Piece through official book versions and versions on television. WhisperToMe 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Tjstrf, seeing as you've already been involved with User:Centrx concerning the illogical nature of sending WP:VINE to WP:VIE you might like to join the similarly natured discussion over on [[Talk:WP:VOTE]]. Essentially User:Centrx is trying to do the same thing with the WP:VOTE redirect (despite a WP:VIE having a corresponding WP:NOVOTE redirect). I need to step away from the computer now. Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tjstrf, I suggest you take a look at this page:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans --Fahrenheit451 02:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to accuse you or anything, but just FYI 'blond' is correct (as is 'blonde') for describing light hair. However, because the word is used in French where the final 'e' is added for females, it's usually best to say 'blond' when referring to males or objects perceived as masculine. At least, this is the style I follow. You may of course choose to ignore this. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Saw your comments on a couple of talk pages. Kannadi per se, is not any swear word that I know of. The problem is that it just doesnt mean anything. Of course in Kannada Kannadi means 'mirror'. So I hope you see the absurdity of calling Kannada speakers(or Kannadigas) "Mirrors"! Just doesnt make any sense!

And whats more, mahawiki is doing it out of spite. The first time I asked him not to do it was probably a month ago. And he retorted on some talk page saying... "wow.. he(thats me) doesnt like it! so I'll use it!!". not just me, but you can ask any Kannadiga, they'll take exception to being addressed as Kannadi, not because it is a swear word(atleast not in Kannada) but because its simply absurd and can probably be construed as being made fun of(who knows what it means in Marathi). Offensive or not, it is at best a slang.

mw's excuse that kannadigas are called kannadis in Marathi is lame. Gross ignorance of South Indian languages and customs in Northern India is not rare and that might explain Kannadigas being addressed as Kannadis. For that matter, Indians(and all others in the world) have their own terminologies to refer to people of various nationalities, ethnicities and races. That doesnt mean we start using it on en.wikipedia. Sarvagnya 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Karnatakan may well be the intuitive English word for a native of Karnataka(on that count why not Karntakaian? or Kannadaan or Kannadaian). Point is, these terms are never used, not even by international english authors. The only other term that has been used to refer to Kannadigas is the anglicised Canarese. But that is an old colonial usage(not offensive, may I hasten to add) and has fallen into disuse(since the last many many many years).

And no, he isnt adding it on the article pages yet(atleast hasnt caught my eye if he has), but there's no saying that he wont feel emboldened to add it on the article pages either(in future). Also, like I said, every Kannadiga will first react with surprise when first addressed as Kannadi. But will certainly take exception if he/she realises that it is being done out of spite and not out of bonafide ignorance.

So if he continues the use of it even on the talk pages, and even if i start ignoring it myself, rest assured, someone else(a Kannadiga) will rake this up again when he sees it. So its better we put a stop to this now. Sarvagnya 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Im not being stubborn but if u notice Sarvagnya also uses words like "Marati" for Marathi, Marathis for Marathi_people.His latest post in my inbox reads (check my talk page if u want) ..."And dont hide behind meaningless google hits which only maratis can read. Interestingly, google also gives a hit for Chatripati Shivaji. So right, Chatripati Shivaji(wow.. the name sounds so coooool), he is and will be from now on...

Insistance of Kannadig is like insistance of Bhartiya instead of Indian and 'Marathi manoos' for Maharashtrians. The user Sarvagnya is just taking revenge of his failure at Belgaon page where he tried his best to remove Marathi transliteration.

And yeah I dont insert the term into articles. Kannadi is term used in West India for residents of Karnataka. mahawiki 04:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you constantly refresh the knuckles page to guard it against Falsities?

Someone's seemingly never heard of a watchlist... --tjstrf 21:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

still pretty sad

Thanks for your message on commons, that will help us to send this user in space. Currently, he is already block on commons, fr, it and de. :] Yug 23:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused anyone of anything. I said that his actions appeared elitist, but I never actually called anyone elitist. Lordshmeckie 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you want, I said what I said. I didn't call him elitist, just that his actions were. Now, I'm done arguing this. It's silly. Lordshmeckie 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy I don't get your comment? I am calm. However, I'm not very happy about the process that is going on that page. I don't care that much about the proposal, let it stand or fall as it will. I don't, however, think it's right or fair or proper to slap a Rejected tag on a discussion that is very much alive, productive, and running at above 2/3 in favor -- and then protect the page, and call "edit war" if that's not allowed to stand. Now I've just seen an admin unprotect the page and immediately and completely trash the text of a proposal, about one step above just blanking the page.

I'm calm, but I'm also determined that that sort of thing just not be allowed to stand, if I can do anything about it. If I just walked away and said Meh, let them have their way, that would not show calm, that would show weakness and laziness.

Am I missing something here? Herostratus 03:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm. I see what you're saying. I'll cogitate on that for awhile. Herostratus 03:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah. I can't buy it. If he wanted to improve the article, he wouldn't have gone along with slapping a premature "Rejected" tag on it and then protecting it. If he wanted to advance his version he could have posted a draft on a subpage and not blanked the page -- and it was page blanking, you know (and so was the diff you showed me, for that matter). And there's all the other stuff too. But I do genuinely appreciate your input! Cheers, Herostratus 04:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. But there are a number of people that are pretty disgusted by it, I see. Herostratus 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, how about this one?

>Radiant< 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey tj, thanks for the encouragement ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that we settled that matter, I'm not the type of person that goes around doing that sort of thing to everyone on Wikipedia. I obviously am not proud of it, I have had a few run ins with people in the past but lately I've been editing with causing any disturbances. I know the chances of us working together are pretty slim, but when Super Power Warriors comes out (2007/2008) perhaps we can work together on that, seeing as how I already have a template for it. Thanks again for being so forgiving. - The preceding comment was made by Grevenko Sereth 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

THANKS! - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanx for your reverts on Maratha Empire page. --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I’m doing this right. Anyway, thanks for your warning about my All-Interval Tetrachord article. I did it in multiple saves. I hope it’s better now.S.dedalus 23:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help :-) S.dedalus 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We'll just have to block you"? You're not even an administrator. As for the discussion, it's just too obvious that you're looking for excuses to censor editors. I'm sorry, but I don't have conversations with liars or with people who lack respect for the basic human right of expression. You're probably too young to understand, anyway.--Jreem22 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is the one who suggested having the links there. And Jimbo is paranoid about copyright violations (that's his pet peeve). Wikipedia is not responsible for links to outside sites. Give me a break, please.--Jreem22 07:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hiding feature is nice, but the type that offers to expand the area is too small to read on my screen. Also, I think the actual fact of hiding some publishers creates POV issues. I think we should use the normal infobox for standardization. I'm sure another solution will present itself. Dekimasu 10:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe if the English publishers were also hidden, just leaving the original publisher, it wouldn't have that POV problem. I still can't read the text, though. Dekimasu 10:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the info box hide thing too, but i think you should add the english publisher to the other too this way its fair. Also you should hide the networks that air it too this way it isnt just the manga publishers that get hidden. Malevious 14:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should put the infobox hide/show option on more animes. Expecially ones with long lists such as Naruto and Yu Yu Hakusho it would make the anime articles much more tidy. Malevious 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, All of which is just meaningless rhetoricizing.

I have skirts that are older than you and if you didn't understand what I wrote it might be because you have neither sufficient experience nor knowledge to keep up. I very humbly suggest that in the future, you tone down the arrogance and brush up on your reading skills. Whatever. Thank you and have a nice day :) Wyss 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because my age is oh-so-relavent to the fact that nothing you said had any solid reasoning in it, instead relying on the use of guilt-by-association parallels between Wikipedia and MUD chat programs... Yes, very arrogant of me. Cheers! --tjstrf 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to handle the situation appropriately -- its true. Be aware that there is significant history between the parties involved: [2]. Also, note how nicely editing of another template I recently suggested can go with different individuals involved: Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict --Ben Houston 23:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware there is a significant history of Ben Houston wikistalking (e.g. [3] [4] [5]), falsely accusing and generally disagreeing with both editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I did recently create that template Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict] and add it to a bunch of articles as one of the ones you point to above. I also created the article of the parent organization of Media_Watch_International as well as many other articles in the same class. You also seem to edit articles that I edit such as Engage (organization). And with regards to the September 30 article, your contributions list is publically available, as you first told me when I accused you of wikistalking [6]. --Ben Houston 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. I edit Wikipedia from work. I use my User page dozens of times a day. My connection at work is not fast and therefore my user pages must remain small. Secondly, people can also see my computer screen, not just in the office but also outside through the windows and I am also not the only person who uses this PC. I don't want pictures on a startup page because of this. --Squilibob 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is MY user page. the 3RR policy you linked to says it does not apply to user pages. I am tired of being harassed by BhaiSaab and have already filed for advocacy against him. If he wants to control the article that much, fine, he can fucking have it, I'm tired of his harassment and just want to edit in peace.Uzumaki 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of this. BhaiSaab is running a bot and harassing me. You know me, I know you from the Naruto page. I am normally a civil person. I am getting increasingly tired of being harassed and lied about. If you want me to leave wikipedia, fine, I'll fucking leave. There's no point to it anyways when an asshole like him is let to harass me over and over even after I've told him to his goddamn ugly face that I won't edit his precious article any more. Uzumaki 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File a checkuser in addition to that 3rr report. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of lawyering when you are making up "policy" as you go? How arrogant! Uzumaki 21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why a sockpuppet should be so concerned with policy is perplexing. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING HARASSING ME! Is THAT a good enough reason? You just keep lying and attacking me and lying some more, and harassing me, and using a fucking bot to harass me. I already told you, I wouldn't edit that article any more. You can fucking have it. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? Uzumaki 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for you to admit that you are a sockpuppet, of course. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be lying, and unlike you, I'm not a fucking goddamn liar. Uzumaki 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you file a 3rr report, that may turn out difficult for me to do. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is relatively insignificant considering the issues at hand. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me 30 minutes before you file the 3rr report. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have already filed it. Nevermind. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freestylefrappe has been playing the policy game for a long time. If you wish to help contructively, inform yourself on the case and discuss the problem on the relevant noticeboard [7]. Thank you. Jean-Philippe 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe is just trying to harass me. I already told him I would not touch their goddamn article any more. Uzumaki 20:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy seems pretty good at this game. If he hadn't cited policy anywhere like a normal new (vandal) user, he would already be blocked, I'm sure. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing a game harassing me BhaiSaab. Quit it. Just LEAVE ME ALONE. What part of that can you not fucking understand? I already told you I wouldn't edit that article any more. Ever. WHAT THE FUCK MORE DO YOU WANT? Uzumaki 21:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps next time you could assume that some established users know what they're doing. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All they had to do is stop harassing me, and this didn't need to go anywhere. Instead, they kept lying about me and harassing me.Uzumaki 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is apparantly a huge boring task no-one wants to do, so why not make it semi-automated?"

Hi. I'll be brief: It's not that huge a task, and I'm willing to do it. I just never knew about it.

brenneman ^{L} 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the talk page didn't come along (seems like a bug with the move-delete combo); I've fixed it now. The reason for this move is that the Office and OTRS get a lot of complaints about the term "vanity", since the subjects of articles find it derogatory. Hence, the intent is to deprecate the term. >Radiant< 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this edit of yours: I don't understand why you reformatted my comments. I think that the significance of "¶" is clear; if I'd wanted line-broken pragraphs I'd have made them. -- Hoary 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm used to working with lots of IP's who don't get the formatting, and I thought I'd just encountered the latest in a long list of strange formatting mistakes.

I guess it works either way, though I would state that using breaks rather than paragraph markers saves the reader some trouble, especially since the pilcrow is not a commonly encountered character in written communications. It's rather esoteric as a piece of punctuation nowadays, aside from editorial proof-reading. Well, I'll avoid messing with your punctuation in the future. --tjstrf 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, no harm done. And thanks for the note. -- Hoary 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has made numerous pejorative/racist statements against Hindus that I feel need to be addressed.He refuses to negotiate with me and continues being disruptive.Could you please talk to him and ask him to cooperate at least?Hkelkar 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has the editor Hkelkar committed 3 RR on this Page.If so, please do what is needed TerryJ-Ho 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this editor has a habit of carrying historical baggage and using these to target the person of the editor,Please keep your views in respect of this article itself.TerryJ-Ho 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To help with understanding the problem here note that he is trying to present one Barrani as a Mufti capable of issuing Fatwa when he was a historian whose accounts include India's society in 14 century.Barrani's two books are still read for Indian Medieval history in universities:

Barani, Ziauddin Tarikh-I-Firuzshahi, Barani, Ziauddin Fatawa-I-Jahandari, The problem could be that this editor has no background in Persian and Arabic literature and his inability to understand that fatwa can have many meaningsTerryJ-Ho 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not.I am very careful not to violate 3RR EVER!I rarely even violate 1RR unless it's overt vandalism.

None of the diffs beyond my first revert for the day were reverts. See for yourself:

Not a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81970320&oldid=81968853

Not a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81972522&oldid=81970739

Terry's reverts lie between these diffs.

In fact, it was User:TerryJ-Ho who started the reverting of my extremely well-sourced edits with a summary that shows clear WP:NOR violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81969852&oldid=81968853

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81971875&oldid=81970739

Both of his (not mine) edits are bad faith reverts of my sourced edits with his dubious assertions and attributions to sources that don;t contain the things he says they do.

Plus, he is trying to whitewash the Muslim Caste system and paint all the ills of the world on Hindus (kind of like the anti-Hindu version of Der Sturmer actually), which gels rather well with this bad faith AfD nom of his Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu that was so unanimously voted against him that it is virtually unprecedented on wikipedia.

I have offerred to discuss with him but he keeps edit-warring nonetheless.

Instead of warring I urge him to DISCUSS first.Hkelkar 11:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why it's a reversible proposed deletion. The article did not set out any notability info whatsoever, and had been tagged for importance for some time, as you probably know. Thanks for looking into it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Manga... these mountains of inconsequential fictional crufty-cruft make me ill... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the Redwall userbox less ugly! I thought it was kinda ugly myself, but I'm not great with code and that was the best I could do. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russa Nodrey was that I thought we could merge all (or most) of the individual character articles into a master List of Redwall characters organized by the book in which they first appeared. I thought that we could put the books in the order of their printing, not chronological order. For characters appearing in multiple books we'd put a line in the section for the later book saying to see the entry above. I suppose the easiest thing would be to list the characters alphabetically in the book. Make sense? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Martin, and maybe one or two others (Maybe Matthias, Mattimeo, and Cluny as the main characters and main villian in the early books and movie/tv adaptions) could keep their own articles but still get mentions in the main list. We'll have to be really careful about what we do and don't merge though. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move this discussion here. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]