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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you clarify why that page was deleted, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.185.118 ( talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Sure. It was deleted pursuant to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Characters_of_Vampire:_The_Masquerade_-_Bloodlines_(2nd_nomination). Kind regards, Nandesuka ( talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Um... okay. If you feel it's okay for a page like this to remain in a user space, why are you now telling me you're going to delete the page? If it's in my user space, it shouldn't be anybody else's concern. - FeralDruid ( talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Please feel free to clean up the article now. The editor who was acting consensus has been ejected. -- Adoniscik^{( t, c)} 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

How on earth did you find my sandwich essay? I'm delighted it's actually used somewhere :) WLU ( talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hiya. I just saw your ban of User:Lansbargh. You may also wish to take a look at User:FullestInfo, who was making the exact same edits to the Pretender article. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been asked [5] to look into your blocking of a group of allegedly related people. Personally I suspect the person who asked me that might be a sockpuppet of the blocked user, but I have to give that person the benefit of the doubt and, as an admin, take the request seriously. I, of course, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you probably did the right thing. I just need to ask: Why did you block User:TanjaFleischer indefinitely based apparently on a single talk page edit? If he/she was an obvious sockpuppet of somebody, it would have been helpful if you'd mentioned that. Otherwise, I do have trouble understanding an indefinite block over those particular talk page remarks. (Believe me, I'm sorry to bring this up, but I did get a request.) Doczilla _STOMP! 11:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

And now Jquandar is blocked for the obvious sockpuppetry. Thanks. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Where should I post this picture which you removed from Labium (genitalia)? I put it to Vulva but it was removed again.-- Boombak ( talk) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I copied the Byron page over to my sandbox temporarily to work on it. I needed to constantly flip through the wiki preview to see the effects, and I felt that was easiest. I am mostly planning to fully work on his first years until he started wandering. I restructured it and the rest. The reason why I am mentioning this to you right now is that I would want your input when I put it up, since you can help figure out notable things I left out, things I may have missed, help me track down some controversial/poorly sourced claims, etc. I only have 11 books on Byron, and then some more generic books that have discussions of him, so my resources are not as plentiful as I would like in this situation. However, I have a classic biography which can account for all the basic stuff. Leave me a note or a word when you will be around. There are some others who would love to help with the clean up, and I think it would be good for us all to work together and produce something nice, instead of having to watch the current article degenerate from lack of a carefully planned structure and bad referencing. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been bogged down with some rather pointy complaints lodged against one of my pages that is going through an FAC review, so I couldn't devote as much time to Byron. However, this is what I have so far. It is about half way done. If you have any suggestions, ideas, etc, I would appreciate it a lot. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm wondering whether to put Percy's theories in my list of official crank theories. I read some of his stuff in the encyclopedia of homosexuality and it was frankly laughable. I looked at the areas I know best such as medieval philosophy and it was stuff like, St Anselm was clearly a pedophile, St Peter Damian clearly wasn't because he persecuted them, Aquinas might have been a pedophile, all on the most tenuous basis, and there certainly wasn't any philosophy that I could see. Percyism. Consists of looking through the main characters of intellectual history and attributint some form of pedophilia on the basis of almost nothing at all. You mention on the pederasty talk that Percy has been accused of fabrication. Sources? Peter Damian ( talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I happen to agree with your assertion [ [6]], but a source might be found later. Bearian ( talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Looks like there was some unintentional fallout from the recent mass-reverts to get rid of {{ Abandonia}}. Might want to watch that it's only mainspace edits that were reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. There were so many of them that that one got caught up accidentally. Nandesuka ( talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry if this sounds abrupt, but I noticed your comments about being a big System Shock 2 fan. I have listed the System Shock 2 article for FAC, but I'm having trouble with the prose. I was wondering if you would care to look over the article and tell me what you think. Is there anything that can be improved? Please do not feel like you have to do this, I'm sure you have projects of your own. Thanks -- Noj r ( talk) 05:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ ( talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Drakes logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

[7] It would be better if the content was not quite so pejorative. Perhaps a rewording? Risker ( talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I was simply using Haiduc's proposed description of Wikipedia editors as "internet nobodies" because I figured it would help him understand. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I like to follow discussions passively more than join in the fray so to speak partly because I'm more comfortable remaining in the background and also because I find things on wikipedia an interesting read. I noticed your and Ottava Rima's entry here [ [8]] where Ottava Rima writes "The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory" in speaking of Haiduc, that's a pretty bold claim. Wouldn't that get an automatic ban? If someone's using wikipedia to promote a personal agenda and in doing so obscure the facts and provide misinformation? That's gotta be a pretty serious concern if you ask me. Sure somethings inevitably get presented correctly so long as they fit the agenda, but much more often things don't fit that agenda and have to be twisted to do so.

I've taken a look through his history of edits and have happened upon some of his edits by happenstance when looking up an article of personal interest and it's a pretty consistent picture. It doesn't matter your sexual orientation; to have someone misrepresent others as being part of your orientation is a disservice to all involved. I for one would prefer an accurate representation than an exaggerated but false one. I for one find his edits concerning.

Here's just two examples of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Happy_Prince_and_Other_Tales http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Poliparis&diff=243852117&oldid=241651311

I'm sure many more can be found. I only thought to make a mental note of them half way through my random search. But what I notice is he adopts as general and fuzzy a definition of pederasty to include as many people as possible within it, despite how non-mainstream his definition is. There are times when he clearly includes examples of pedophilia within it. There are others when he includes relationships between two teenage boys. There are times when he uses references that do not even discuss anything remotely to do with sexuality. Encyclopedias should be to share information, not to as a platform for a personal agenda that comes with the cost of misinformation. I can go on and on but thought I'd bring this to your attention so you know you're not the only one having this experience-- Jyngyr ( talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, you undid an edit on the page Usopp. I'd like to ask you to consider undoing similar edits by the same user on the pages for Zoro, Sanji, Nami, Chopper, and Robin. Thank you. -- Goodraise ( talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for using the edit summary that you did for the above edit. The page you were referring to was good for a laugh. :) Rockfang ( talk) 05:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Another problem. The reason why is that this source is not a mainstream source or from a mainstream literary analysis publication. Instead, its information can be found here. The "fact" is conjecture and is not stated as such, but described as fact, in the lead, not even sated where the scene exists, and by the same person who has a habit for doing this. Plus, I really think it is a stretch to make ths argument of Wood (which is why its not in a true respectable publication where normal Wilde criticism is found). Ottava Rima ( talk) 13:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you elaborate on your last point ("it is a stretch to make this argument of Wood?") I'm not sure i understand. Nandesuka ( talk) 13:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Wood is saying that a kiss = pederasty, without proving that the kiss was sexual, erotic, etc. It seems that this is one of many of Haiduc's authors who use "hidden" messages that exist in "codes" that give a secret meaning to an author's work, without any proof, historical or biographical, for such a claim. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

But in this case, at least there is an actual author making the claim, which is generally where I draw the line. Is Wood an inappropriate or fringe source, and if so, what makes her so? Nandesuka ( talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The work is too tiny to really be anything that is explanatory. It is intentionally one sided and in an obscure journal. The lack of any mainstream interpretations means that there is undue weight regardless. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Targ.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- FairuseBot ( talk) 05:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED ( talk) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

How can he get away with these comments when it is clear from the Douglas excerpts that he 1. was removing directly quoted material from the page, 2. inserting directly misquoted information, 3. unable to acknowledge the multiple quotes from Douglas (on the page and talk page) saying that there is no certainty and that people disagree with Crompton's approach, and 4. claiming that my quote at the very bottom somehow legitimizes what he says even though the quote makes it apparent that they are not influenced by Crompton's claims of pederasty, and they are equally influenced by three biographies that do not accept there being even a sexual relationship between Byron and Giraud, let alone a "pederastic" relationship? Can't we ask for a topic ban already? This is out of control. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I forgot to add that he also completely miss-cited the material he tried to add in also, which is a common problem with his edits to various problems. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you know about this page. In case you wanted to introduce actual medical terms into the mix. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The log says it was deleted, but it seems to still be there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Another admin got it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker ( talk) 03:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Nandesuka - I haven't seen you about lately, but thats probably a good sign. I hope your holiday goes well, and that there will be fewer problems and hassles next year. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 05:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

G'day Nandesuka, I hope you had a good break. But please I am not getting on my high horse about the caesarean picture and I am hardly doing WP:SOAP. I simply do not believe that a caesarean photo is a good illustration of childbirth. 95% of the world population do not use caesarean as a method of birth. Therefore it should not be illustrative of childbirth. It is illustrative of caesarean birth. Gillyweed ( talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

There's no reason the article can't illustrate both of the two most common forms of childbirth. Nandesuka ( talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The way it is written is definitely slanted. How would you feel if I switched it around like this?

Rises in rates of caesarean sections are a cause for concern, and may reflect changing healthcare patterns. Louise Silverton, deputy general-secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, says that not only has society’s tolerance for pain and illness been “significantly reduced”, but also that women are scared of pain and think that if they have a caesarean there will be less, if any, pain. It is the opinion of Silverton and the Royal College of Midwives that “women have lost their confidence in their ability to give birth."[26]

Nonetheless, some institutions have tried to generate theories to explain the rise. The US National Institutes of Health says:

Would that be none POV as well? 98.114.95.32 ( talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll take a crack at rewriting it to make clear that it's the NIH that is making the statement, not Wikipedia. Nandesuka ( talk) 23:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You're still pushing your own viewpoint, but I don't care enough to argue. You must really love caesarean sections. 98.114.95.32 ( talk) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You think? I was fascinated to discover that the Guardian article that was cited to support the premise "Women choose C-sections because they are wimps" actually was a balanced treatment quoting a number of different sources, but that only one of these sources was mentioned. So maybe what's at issue here is that you misunderstand what "neutral point of view" really means. Nandesuka ( talk) 02:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Friend, I didn't say that I would stay away from that article for all eternity. Feel free to file an arbcom case to settle the matter. Justforasecond ( talk) 02:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You recently removed a part of the Baba Yaga article mentioning that she were referred to in the online game RuneScape, as this is the only medium of that type mentioned, as well as being a medium with more than 1 million subscribing, it in my opinion is of noteworthy value as it shows how Baba Yaga not only appears in music, tales and movies, but also computer games(+++).

Zevvi ( talk) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Nandesuka, I aprreciate your input on my addition to the Influences of the film, Yojimbo. But if you could see and hear the close of the Samurai Jack episode to which I would refer, you would see the direct influence of Yojimbo - especially in the music, which is so unlike the usual music for the animated series. With respect, I have once again placed the text in the Influences category. Mcwebeditor ( talk) 12:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Nandesuka, thanks for following-up on my previous post, regarding your input on my addition to the Influences of the film, "Yojimbo," on the animated series, "Samurai Jack." I would like to submit the following Wiki post by Jackhynes ... References_in_Samurai_Jack#Yojimbo Mcwebeditor ( talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I see that you have reverted my reversion of the chordee photo in the above article. I don't want to revert it back without discussing with you first. I believe the particular photo illustrates the pathology section and thus does belong in the article. I'm not too worried about keeping the other two photos, but think that their removal would need a discussion in a wider forum.

I put the image back initially because a new user ( User:Lamperogue) had removed it and an image from the Testicle article and made no other edits. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, two weeks seems rather extreme. One week seemed extreme. Anyhow, given his unblock request, I'd ask that the block to be reduced. Please comment at User talk:Aether22. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have to agree with Rjd here, and seeing as you offered to reduce the block, and Aether22 agreed to the conditions I think at least a reduction would be in order. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Nandesuka, thanks again for following-up on my previous post, regarding non-Wiki sources for my posts. I have re-worked my text about the influence of the film "Yojimbo" on the animated series "Samurai Jack," and incorporated a pair of new references into that text ... Thank you ... Mcwebeditor ( talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you've commented there before, I thought you might want to weigh in on this series of edits. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You recently edited the definition of Breastfeeding and removed the part that said, "and not from a baby bottle or other container." Your edit summary indicated the sources used in that article define it simply as drinking human breast milk. I've found that not to be the case. The WHO defines drinking expressed or wet-nurse milk as an "alternative" to breastfeeding, see the bottom of page 9. The AAP does, as well, and expanding the definition of breastfeeding to include all sources of human milk would make their admonitions confusing ("Women who are HIV-positive should not breastfeed their offspring."). Sources that define "exclusive breastfeeding" do indeed stress the human milk aspect, but I believe that is because they are focused on defining the exclusive part of the phrase.

Anyway, not to be a boob about this, but could you point me to the sources you were looking at when you made that change? Cheers, Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:DwarfFortressBuilding.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Haiduc is back and intent on dramatically changing things without and real justification. This has the insertion of blatant peacock terms and non-neutral statements into the lead, the moving of text from factual to speculative (its a letter and has nothing to do with critical/biographical speculation), and removing content in general. I don't understand why he has to persist in edit warring the page, especially right after I just listed it up for GAN. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Nandesuka, I appreciate you getting involved in the Home birth page again. Unfortunately the version you have protected is the vandalized version by the anon editor. It would have been appreciated if you had reverted his changes before protecting the page. Please have a look at the history of his edits, his tone and uncivil behaviour towards all of us who are attempting to improve the page. I am working most cooperatively with three other editors (one, Astynax, who has only become involved after it became an 'edit war' and whose role is to keep an eye on NPOV, and appears to have no interest in the issue, other than getting a good article etc) and regretfully every change we make is reverted by the anon editor (the one whose version you have protected). I admit that the article still has problems but we are getting there (despite the interference of the anon who will not engage despite being asked very nicely by other editors). We've put a lot of effort into the article over the past week or so and thus to have the anon's version being the protected one is somewhat depressing. Could you please reconsider. Thank you Gillyweed ( talk) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Please take a look at m:The Wrong Version. I really don't think there's anything in the page as is that is immediately harmful, so letting it sit as-is while discussion takes place is not such a terrible thing. Nandesuka ( talk) 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll pay that article! I shall be patient. Thanks for taking an interest. Gillyweed ( talk) 06:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Could you please have a look at the Home Birth page again. I have tried very patiently to make small amendments to the article, referencing all my changes but the anon editor continues to do wholsale reversions of the article back to the original poor version. We have tried engaging him on the talk page. We have tried engaging him on his page. He simply states that until he is satisfied with what is written he will continue to revert the article. The anon has now reverted 3 times in the past 24 hours, simply stating that there is no agreement to make the changes we have been making. Any suggestions? Gillyweed ( talk) 13:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Ignore the above. Another admin has stepped in and we will now attempt to move forward and produce a good consensus and evidence based article. Gillyweed ( talk) 01:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ex-hidegen-cover.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. The rationale on that page was according to policy at the time it was uploaded. However, I've added a rationale using the current flavor-of-the-day template. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Nandesuka ( talk) 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

hey i saw that you had deleted a NLP section called "well formed outcomes"

just wanted to see what happened with it... i had been self-applying NLP for a while and wanted to check back on it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delinquentme ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Back in 2005, you argued to keep this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn. However, Wikipedia has changed since then, and I believe she no longer meets our standards for inclusion. I have re-nominated the article for deletion; your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you have been involved in this issue, can you please explain here why a general essay without any references for the claims done by someone who is not a Wilde biographer nor is it about Wilde's biography is not a reliable source for a controversial claim about an individual's sexuality? They don't seem to understand that the very fact that this claim is not in any respectable biographies on Wilde makes it rather obvious that the claim is a fringe view. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Ex-hidegen-cover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Nandesuka! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. David Rolfe - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 06:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pederastic couples in Japan. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pederastic couples in Japan. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonalone for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ipatrol ( talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't be silly. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please tell me what you think at Talk:Penis#Main_Image_Upgrade. Just in case, that is not my penis and I am not related to that person anyhow. It's just one of around 700 penises from Commons, which I found to suit best. WP:AGF Yestadae ( talk) 07:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tsundere. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsundere (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Greetings! Someone has requested that Bill Huffman be banned from editing Talk: Derek Smart. I wanted to find a few people who have had experience interacting with Mr. Huffman to see if they might consider weighing in. Being a fledgling editor I normally wouldn't feel confident enough to canvass for this, but it seems the complainant in this regard may want to advance disciplinary actions against Mr. Huffman far beyond the scope of just this one article. If you feel you can make any kind of statement with regards to Bill Huffman's editing, the case can be found here. Thank you for your time! 72.192.46.9 ( talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

...for commenting on the dispute in Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau. Blackworm ( talk) 06:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

hey, no problem. Nandesuka ( talk) 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

in this. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply

ETA: and he's just been blocked. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Nandesuka (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that is utter nonsense. To your first point, there are links to four, count 'em four "chat forums" already listed on the page, as I've already pointed out. So how can you possibly claim that discussion forums are not allowed on Wilipedia. That is just not true.

To your second point, what difference does it make who places the link there? I certainly want to let GIMP users know there is an AD free discussion site available to them. I have an interest in promoting GIMP because I believe in FOSS and I am a big supporter of GIMP. I certainly don't see any conflict of interests, as my only interest is providing help to GIMP users and a website where meaningful GIMP discussions can occur.

I can send 100 people here tomorrow to add a link so this misguided notion of conflict of interest is absurd on its face. In 2 minutes, any competent editor could clearly see that Gimp Chat is simply a site that helps users with GIMP, develops new ideas/concepts and furthers the application. The idea that I'm a spammer is just absurd, when I have nothing to gain by providing the site and paying for it out of my own pocket.

What we have here is a clique of editors, blinded by some misguided sense of political correctness, who can't tell the difference between spam and legitimate information sites. It's really shameful. The way I see it, the policies in place here are actually hurting GIMP users, rather than seeking to be a useful to tool for them.

After careful consideration of how I've been treated on this site, I no longer wish to be listed on here or have Gimp Chat associated with this site in any way. As a matter of fact, I'm going to publicize how I was treated on this site and expose the ridiculous, unfair and selective treatment that goes on here. No wonder Wikipedia is a discredited laughingstock on the Internet.

Gimpchat ( talk) 07:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

OK. Good luck with that. Nandesuka ( talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your message, I have removed the inappropriate links from GIMP. Amay82 ( talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Super, thanks. Nandesuka ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Death race.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FiftyMissionMap.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 01:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus ( talk) 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Back in 2005, you participated in an AFD discussion this article. It was kept, but I have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Very Secret Diaries (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 01:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 ( Talk) 03:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Daniel tiger.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The purpose of my RfC was not to confuse the issue, but rather to clarify it, as the debate related to the other RfC raises two separate issues and leads nowhere unless each issue is treated independently on its own merit. Several contributors support removing/moving the image on the basis of a dual argument, which states both that nudity is offensive and that the clothed image is a better choice for various other reasons (better quality, more informative, etc.). Breaking this into two separate questions could help get out of the current impasse. If there is a consensus that the nude picture is a bad image, then the case is settled, and there is no need to argue further and claim that the clothed image has better qualities. If on the other hand the image is not considered offensive (either in the absolute, or simply in the context of the Pregnancy article), then the debate can shift to a more constructive and less emotional question: which of the clothed image or the naked image provides more information and is more suitable as lead illustration of the article. My view is that the current image is not offensive, and that it provides more information than the clothed image, but this is obviously just the opinion of one editor among others. I have no problem accepting the consensus, wherever it goes, but I think the question needs to be clearly asked, as a sustainable consensus cannot result from an ambiguously phrased question. Dessources ( talk) 08:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Your stated intent with that second straw-man RFC was, paraphrased "Here's a proposal to do something that I myself don't want to do": that's almost the textbook definition of WP:POINT. You keep asserting that the existing RFC is at an impasse, but frankly that isn't clear to me at all: a consensus is developing, and will continue to develop throughout the life of the RFC.

The question being asked in the original RFC is "What should be done about the lede image?" That is not ambiguous in any way whatsoever.

I do agree that the three- or four- way 8,153,627 page response thread between several voluble editors on that page was at an impasse. That is not enough justification to add a WP:POINTy RFC into the mix. The overall inference I, and I think most administrators, would make from that is "This guy doesn't like the way the original RFC is trending, and so is throwing more stuff against the wall to see if something sticks." That may not be your intention - I'm more than willing to believe you're acting in good faith – but that's how it looks. Nandesuka ( talk) 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Nandesuka,

Since you've decided to intervene on this page, could you please do so evenly? I'd like you to remove the joke linked above, which is not relevant to the discussion and implies that anyone who disagrees with Dessources is literally both perverted and insane. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 20:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

S'ok. it was taken care of by someone else. -- Ludwigs2 22:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

To be fair, perhaps you should note this editor's 'tiny' edit count too. Any others in there with small edit counts? Dreadstar ☥ 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Dear Nandesuka,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 ( talk) 03:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SPECTAR.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Star fire.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Did you mean to leave this edit stand? Just FYI. Zad 68 17:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The article Peachtree Accounting has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability of this software is not established with the inline citations of the reliable sources discussing the topic in depth. Since being tagged with {{ refimprove}} back in December 2007 the article still relies exclusively on primary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 06:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peachtree Accounting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peachtree Accounting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You made some revisions under the Baba Yaga page on '14:08, 22 April 2012' removing a number of pop culture references that are widely published/visible, were well written, and seemed relevant. Curious as to the specific reason you saw it necessary to delete most of the contemporary references and hoping to change your mind about it. I'm also curious as to why the VG references were all deleted as well. Castlevania is a big franchise and her presence in the game is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.114.46 ( talk)

We disagree about the importance of casual mentions of this character in videogames. Nandesuka ( talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC) reply

While I cannot argue for the other games, she is one of only 8 lead speaking roles in Castlevania: Lord of Shadows, and is featured as the primary focus for three fairly lengthy levels of the game (The exterior of her house, the interior of her house, and the inside of her puzzle-box where you need to recover a blue rose). Her presence in roughly an hour of gameplay gives credit to the claim that she has a supporting role in the game and is not simply a bit part cameo. As for her place within the story, *spoilers* Baba Yaga gives the main character insight to his true enemy is and helps transport him to the titan graveyard, after he does a few chores for her and acquires a blue rose. In addition to Baba Yaga, her cabin "on chickens feet, surrounded by the skulls of heroes" is also featured. She is also listed in the game's in-game journal under the listing "Main Characters".

• end of spoilers*

As for the game's notoriety, Lord of Shadows has shipped over a million units. I believe that should be credible. Thanks for taking the time to read this :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.114.46 ( talk) 19:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi!

I noticed that you had removed my inclusion of John Twelve Hawks in the literature list on the "panopticon" page. I'm a new Wikipedia contributor, and I cannot understand why you removed it.

So I ask, so that I might learn. What was missing in my contribution that the others on the list has?

Best Regards, Heriks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heriks ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Such fixes are not less harmful than vandalism itself. Develop a habit to examine the history whenever you see something suspicious, especially in a newly-browsed article. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC) reply

You might consider finding alternate ways to express yourself. Nandesuka ( talk) 05:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Due to lack of any other possible constructive approach, I resort to pointing out that I agree with the concern stated above. It can't be entirely rejected. It conveys high-quality feedback to your edits, which is what talk pages are for. Reading the sentence for an edit you are making is crucial for high-quality output. It is simply advice for your own good, so you contribute more efficiently.

• Although it is understandably difficult in an intense argument, if other editors are not as civil as you would like them to be, be more civil, not less.
• Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you.
• Work towards agreement.
• Do not ignore reasonable queries.

From WP:EQ. Cheers! -- Gryllida ( talk) 12:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure! I'm not rejecting the criticism at all. I'm just offering my own criticism - that Incnis Mrsi might consider finding alternate ways to express her or himself. Hopefully, she or he will take my criticism in the same spirit in which I take hers/his. Nandesuka ( talk) 17:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks; an acknowledgment is about all I wanted. It might make sense to put both that and your offer in a single comment so they see that you got the idea at least - makes things more open-minded and easy on the go. All the best, -- Gryllida ( talk) 21:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Good call on changing protection level to semi. I personally hesitate to jump in too quickly with the latest breaking news when there are BLP concerns, but we start to look like ostriches with heads in the sand when the FBI and police along with all major news media are carrying the names nonstop for many hours. Edison ( talk) 14:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply