User talk:Shii/History5

OH GOD THE AGONY

CCB This user only ever talks about himself in the third person when he is doing a Clan of the Cave Bear roleplay. Otherwise, I think it's a little weird. My Table of Contents is very long so I decided to fill up the extra space with userboxes describing my heated opinions on various topics. TOC UH-OH I believe that the only possible effect of political userboxes is to divide users, and they should thus be speedied. On the other hand, people do seem to enjoy them, and who am I to ruin their fun? If you can't beat em, join em! So I guess I'll explain some of my political beliefs. I am not a supporter of the gay community, but I support equal rights for all sexual orientations including marriage. I am atheistic and I like James Randi, and I used to read his column every week, but these days I think he is an old fart with regard to religion, and I believe that skeptics in general think too highly of themselves. File:James randi.jpg I guess these are traits I get from my dad. He brought me up all wrong; all the advice he gave me was exactly the opposite of what I needed to do. But it takes your whole life to understand yourself. How was that? Do you feel like you know me a little better now? Are you a little annoyed that I don't support your opinion fully? HMM What exactly is the point of these "us and them" divisions, anyway? You might say that you're more likely to become friends with someone you share interests or opinions with. Sure, it's a great starting point. But is that the reason for friendship? How will you learn to accept that some people have different opinions from you if you surround yourself with people who agree with you about everything you find important, and ally with them against the "enemy"? WHO Userboxes may seem sort of cheap compared to writing an actual biography, but they acknowledge a deep flaw of human nature, that the whole of our personality is a bunch of labels. If you mix and match enough, and fill in all the details of your life, I'm sure you can find a unique set of labels which describe only you and nobody else on the planet. But who are you? Your interests, your hobbies, these are just things that you apply to yourself. They aren't really who you are, and nobody can get a full impression of you just by putting all of them together. Your age? That's a label, and soon it will change. Your skin color, nationality, job? These are all labels too. Strip away the labels. ARE YOU? What's underneath?

Lir

something is wrong with them.Lir 03:47 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

You heard it from him first.

post to AN/I

Hi Ashibaka, I'm not familiar with the usage of the template you added to Talk:Share taxi, but it appears to require a notification at WP:AN/I, which I can't seem to find. If you've already done this and I missed it when I searched the page, please ignore this message. Cheers, BanyanTree 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Tony Sidaway, I forgot this. (forgot the template too initially) I'll post it now, thanks for the pointer. Ashibaka tock 02:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sup. u a Star Wars fan?

If u r, ask me ANY question at all regarding Star Wars. I will answer. Live long and prosper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philber 22 (talk • contribs)

The Winged Self

Hi dear sysop Ashibaka! I've seen your removal editions regarding the mentioned image, from its templates. As you know, lots of articles in Wikipedia have images, looked as symbols, each one trying to represent a concept given in article. This particular symbol relates itself to esoteric philosophies and the inner planes, as it can be concluded from its description. As a Buddhist you will find the conception of planes of existence as "Deva lokas" (or other that I am not deeply acquainted to). On the other hand, related to each one, you have description of exalted Beings far advanced from our human evolution (which evolves through the cycle of rebirth), as taught, among others, in Buddhism and esoteric philosophies. It is taught also that there are beings from our own evolution Who have gone far beyond the cycle of rebirth into Divine spheres "above". Now, if these beings became liberated from the "chain" that bound us here, it should be logical to deduct that they may have joined the gods Who aid us in our evolutionary steps here. Some even do expect such an advanced being, liberated from our evolution cycle, to rebirth here among us in order to bring a new age of spiritual upliftment... Suppose these Beings have already, in silence, been preparing the way in the world for such an event, as previously spoken, and that they teach us that - above all working with our evolution - there is a far higher Spiritual Being - not from human evolution, but from the evolution of a life wave that to our 'eyes' would be as gods - Who aids and directs mankind's evolution. This exalted Spiritual Being would be the One we call Christ, Whom the "The Winged Self" symbol represents in the central White Rose. Blessed be, --62.169.119.157 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have absolute respect for your religious beliefs, but the fact of the matter is, The Winged Self is a copyrighted image and therefore cannot be used on templates due to our fair use policy. This goes for any image that falls under fair use. Ashibaka tock 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for your comprehension words and for the info on templates that I was not aware. Although the image file does not present any copyright status in online pages, I will be able to get in touch with the painting guardians in order to ask for a public free licence for the image low resolution file, as I am certain this will not constitute a problem. As soon as I have it, it is my intention to publish the license into GFDL in the image page and change its current status. Thank you and Regards. --62.169.119.157 22:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be excellent. I look forward to hearing from you. Ashibaka tock 22:31, 27 April 2006 (UT

what do you do if you have cheeted on your boyfriend

I should bill you for the time

Hi!

re: Poor Summary — Many of us would appreciate a comment like "Applied ACCURACY Template because...". We'd appreciate it even more if you annote the talk:Davy Crockett with a prominent section title and notes as is implied by the template: "See Talk..." For example a heading like the below would be in order:

Applying CLEAN Template 27 Apr 06

Because ...

1. this
2. that
3. and more importantly...

• I hope you've been checking back on any such tagged articles... the rest of us shouldn't have to spend our limited wikiTime trying to trace such unthoughtful behaviour, wouldn't you agree?
• In sum, you owe me for nearly a half-hours effort. My billing rate is fairly high, so I'll give you a pass this time. Do be more considerate going forward. You have a responsibility to the other volunteers here do so, wouldn't you agree?

I'm removing the Template now. If you don't like it, put it back with such documented reasons if you are too lazy or disinterested in cleaning up the article yourself. Best regards, FrankB 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just marking some errors that I thought I saw on the talk page. Time spent fact-checking the article is not time wasted. Ashibaka tock 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Block

Thanks for taking action. But I'm afraid the block would not be able to actually help the situation. Please consider to help bring the disputed matters towards discussion, the parties to talk pages and the dispute towards resolution. I've been requesting user:Alanmak to talk, but all effort was in vain. He simply deleted my requests and other messages from his user talk page with edit summary like " disregard bullshit " or not summary at all. — Instantnood 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid those were hardly concessions. Please see also my response to his message. Thanks for bringing the matter towards possible resolution. — Instantnood 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Appreciation

Not at all. That's what every responsible user is obliged to do whenever she/he notices it. — Instantnood 20:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know user:SchmuckyTheCat is deleting it again, together with a new message of mine. [1] What we can do? — Instantnood 13:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

4got 2 tell ya my name!

srry 4 not sayin' my name up there. I'm the guy who asked if ur a Star Wars fan. Write back soon plz! Philber 22 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Philber 22

Alright, good job with the signing. Uh... anyway... I left a message on your page, I am a Star Wars fan but that's a topic more suitable for an Internet forum. Ashibaka tock 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Instantnood and Alanmak

Sigh. I'll have a word to them tonight when I get home from uni, although I don't think I will be able to become deeply involved in any mediation because it's assignment time at uni... Cheers. enochlau (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just having a peek at the contributions for the two of them. Just a couple of questions... Is it mainly just the issue of China vs. People's Republic of China vs. Mainland China? Any other issues I should be aware of? Also, has any formal mediation been requested/started? Despite my previous comment, I would actually like to see if I can provide some form of mediation, as I had previously stated. Thanks for your help. enochlau (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks for that - tho that'll make it so much more difficult though, as mediation is meant to be primarily a dialog between the two of them, with a third party helping them along. And because this is all online, there's no real way we can compell them to start talking... enochlau (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Miller

Hi. In reference to the email you received from Jamie Miller. Assuming he doesn't want his contact details revealed publically, could you do the massive favour of asking him to contact me. I am the creator of the Game Tree and have been trying to track down the origins of The Game for over a year now. If you could tell him to email me at jonty@losethegame.com it would be much appreciated. Out of interest, how did you find the post about him? Thanks, Kernow 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, he has got in touch. I was also wondering whether it would be possible for you to paste me a copy of The Game article before it was moved to The Game (game). I believe it was under Forgetting Game but I am not sure. Is there anyway I can access the history of an article that has been moved? Because I am interested in all the edits and the users that made them. Thanks. Kernow 12:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I just clarify about your contact with Jamie Miller. How did he get your email address and what reason did he give for contacting you? Kernow 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i know.

Earlier you asked me if "live long and prosper" from Star TREK, not Star WARS. I knew this, i just think it's cool ;)

^Posted by Philber 22

(i keep forgetting 2 use the 4 ~'s, srry :( )

Your remarks to user:Enochlau

I'm disappointed with your remarks at user talk:Enochlau [2]. You're already informed [3] that I did request user:Alanmak to talk. Just that he refused to respond. Furthermore, those are not merely stylistic issues, but reflections of points of view that are deviated from the reality. The disagreements are not only between user:Alanmak and I, but with user:SchmuckyTheCat as well. Please kindly refrain from commenting if you're not familiar enough with the matter, since it could be leading to unnecessary and undesirable troubles, and could be unfair to any or all of the parties involved. Thanks for your attention. — Instantnood 12:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

How was my response a personal attack on Kernow? I merely responded the same way he posted on my Talk page. I assume that you read his posting there, & because you felt my comments violated WP:NPA, you also warned him. If not, may I state that I found his comments insulting, & ask that you also warn him. Whether you do this or not, I'm happy to let the entire matter drop -- which I had after my original comment to JoshuaZ. -- llywrch 23:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He wrote: "No, he's the first person to wonder what you meant by it and be bothered to contact you about it. Kernow 13:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)" I read it as an insult. Or am I imagining a condescending attitude in that sentence that no one else does? -- llywrch 00:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your reading amazingly convoluted. You honestly find no way to interpet Kernow's comment as "No, he's the first person to wonder what you meant by it, and he was the first to decide it was worth his effort to contact you about it"? -- llywrch 00:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see that there is a misunderstanding here between you & me. I admit that things would have been better had I responded to Kernow's post more along the lines that I was offended by his comment on my Talk page -- but I was angry, so I hope you understand my lapse of judgement. However, had Kernow meant what you think he did, wouldn't he have written something more like, "No, he's the first person to wonder what you meant by it, and why you were the first to bother to say something about it"?

Maybe I did misread what Kernow meant, but to put it in another way I believe he meant to convey to me: "No, the rest of us thought you wrote something stupid, but he's the first one to ask you about it." You do see what the difference is between your interpretation, & mine? (And I'm not being sarcastic here -- although if you get that tone of voice in your head, these words could sound that way.) -- llywrch 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I only just noticed llywrch's comment, and the resulting discussion. To clarify, llywrch said that JoshuaZ was the first person to wonder what he meant by his comment. I was simply pointing out this was not necessarily the case, there may have been people that wondered what it meant before JoshuaZ, but JoshuaZ was the first person to contact llywrch about it. I got the impression that llywrch was trying to say that his "Huh?" was not meaningless, because no one else had contacted him about its meaning. Kernow 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kernow, the tone of your recent post to my Talk page does not seem to confirm what you wrote above. -- llywrch 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask you two to take this to your respective talk pages... Ashibaka tock 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). The issue of the name has not been resolved and therefore people are now recruiting others to delete. Feel free to make your judgement known, thank you. Nomen Nescio 21:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

again

nuther one. NoSeptember ^talk 12:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Ashibaka tock 01:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 WP:MEA

For your information, there are still some red links in the list. Plus stubby articles aren't really encyclopaedic articles AFAIK so it is useful to push these articles to GA or FA status or even 0.5 or 1.0 status. Lincher 02:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

1987

I am a wikipedian born in 1987! Kiptrev please add me to the list!

You can add yourself. Put Category:Wikipedians born in 1987 on your userpage. Ashibaka tock 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Buddha Purnima

Hello, kindly accept my greetings on the occasion of Buddha Purnima. --Bhadani 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. A good day to you, too. Ashibaka tock 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I am not a sockpuppet of General eisenhower. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For me this has been established beyond reasonable doubt. You can do a WP:RFCU and prove me wrong though. Ashibaka tock 04:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly do a RFCU if you tell me a few reasons of your suspicion. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Both of you have a nearly 2:1 ratio of edits in User space to main article space.
2. Both of you do absolutely bizarre things in Wikipedia namespace and announce them on the bulletin board.
3. Both of you edit at the same time of day, every day. Image:Katestool.png

(Although, now that I think of it you don't join all of his projects so you might simply be two of a kind.) Ashibaka tock 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll do the RFCU, but can you put it up on the page, because I don't know how. Also, I am so sure I am not his sockpuppet, that if the RFCU says I am, then you can block me indefinately. Also, ask User:NoSeptember and User:Master of Puppets for an opinion. Also, I looked over both of our contribs, and I can see many ways that you can suspect me, but fear not, because I am still doing that RFCU. Thanks, --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ashibaka tock 05:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: RFCU proved me wrong, serve up some of that humble pie! Ashibaka tock 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

Please do not undo people's admin actions without discussion. See WP:AN/I for the report about this, where the protection has support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look who's talking! [4] Ashibaka tock 20:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Ashibaka, I restored the original admin action. I thought people knew by now that we're not meant to just turn up and undo people's blocks and protection. I know it's in the blocking policy and I believe it was in the protection policy when I last looked. It's unhelpful, leads to bad feeling, and often leads to mistakes because the original admin usually knows more about the situation and will be actively monitoring it. It also encourages users to try to play one admin off against the other, and to send out mass e-mails whenever they're blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have known. [5] I take it you're also involved with WR. Don't undo admin actions, don't delete posts, and don't revert to posts from banned users. You're meant to be an admin yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, lighten up a little! You aren't getting paid for this, are you? :) Ashibaka tock 01:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your latest

If you don't want your comments to be changed, don't write things like that. I'd have taken it as a joke from any other admin, but given you restored H's user page because he asked someone to on WR, it seems you're trying to make a point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making a point, I'm making a joke.Assume good faith, especially considering that I'm an administrator, and I'm not holding any grudges against you. Ashibaka tock 00:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is a joke then don't insist on reverting it after someone has removed it. Jokes don't realy belong in serious postings. -Will Beback 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made silly, civil jokes on ArbCom pages before and I do not think that they shall cease at any point in the forseeable future. I hope to remind people that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and ideally we have no enemies among fellow editors. Ashibaka tock 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If those are your views then why are you calling some members "the Cabal"? Calling other editors names, even in fun, or ascribing dark motives to them does not tend to preserve a collegial atmosphere. and instead tend towards creating conflict. Please be more careful when making jokes at the expense of others. -Will Beback 00:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Ashibaka tock 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. On behalf of the cabal, I accept your apology. -Will Beback 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mana ERG

Hey -- I deprodded this, b/c they really do appear to have multiple albums out, so they might meet WP:MUSIC. Just letting you know. Mangojuice^talk 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I was a little offput by all the redlinks and free-host website. Ashibaka tock

Renaming "History of the world" to "Human History"

Please discuss and vote at Talk:History_of_the_world#Name_ambiguity Thank you, __ Maysara 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Article LOL (Internet slang)

With regards to your recent edit to the article LOL (Internet slang). Could you please point out of a few of these needed citations, preferably on the article talk page? To many users requisition action nowadays without giving any reason or instruction, which hurts wikipedia far more than it helps. It does no good to throw the credibility of an article into question unless you can provide evidence as to why (such as with the {{Citation needed}} tags, or on a talk page), so that the article may be fixed, and so that the template addition does not seem malicious or unwarranted. If you wish the tag to stay so that progress may be made, please provide a reasoning for it more than globally claiming analysis on the article, which is really more of a WP:NOR violation than a WP:CITE violation in any regard. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ashibaka tock 05:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I'll try to see that they get delt with rather promtly.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Women's suffrage: Grand merging and reforms!

Please discuss at Women's suffrage#Grand merging and reforms!. Thank you, __ Maysara 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi you did this merge [6] and this one [7]. Was it merged or agreed upon. You're an admin so you pay more attention to changes. The article was unmerged by SchmuckyTheCat. Please clue me in???? Is it supposed to be merged? DyslexicEditor 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The talk page explains that, I leave the article to him because he is very assertive Ashibaka tock 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't like the half-hearted merges. If you're going to merge, you need to protect the article or it'll be unmerged. SchmuckyTheCat basically controls it right now. DyslexicEditor 15:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

UM

May I ask you to motivate this? notwist 09:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

double redirect? Ashibaka tock

Double redirect? Isn't it obvious that "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" should go to "Encyclopædia Dramatica"? What the hell does it have to do with LiveJournal? notwist 09:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

try looking at the post above you Ashibaka tock 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

try not being an ignorant prick. Are you going to give me an answer, because I can't even understand what you're meaning by "double redirect". That several pages redirect to the same? If so, I don't know of any regulation against this. If not, how about explaining yourself instead of playing cool with an arrogant attitude notwist 11:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

When you merge two articles together you have to fix the redirects or things get ugly. Ashibaka tock 15:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

Hi, I'm just randomly declaring my love for the wikipe-tan on the top of your page. Are there any more pics of her?

*Beats myself away from her so I can go back to editting.* orz deadkid_dk 08:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's just that one and the portrait. The author has no website. (See Futaba Channel)

By the way, I like Wikipe more than "Wiki-tan" because the eyes are actually in proportion... shhh... Ashibaka tock 15:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(whisper) Amen to that. deadkid_dk 21:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Orlowski.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orlowski.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image 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 '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 any fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Moé

Ashibaka, why did you move the Moe article again, without any calls for consensus first? Nowhere in the world do "general usage rules" instigate Moé as the more popular spelling, and since Wikipedia uses Hepburn romanization (and not あるオタクの好み) Moé is completely uncalled for in every way.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I waited two months for someone to comment on it. I prefer WP:UE strongly to Hepburn (c.f. my doujinshi discussion back in 2005), and moé with accent aigu is a widely used spelling which distinguishes it easily from other meanings of "moe". If you want to revert, that's fine. I'm only trying to make the article better. Ashibaka tock 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How does this discussion—which ran out of steam a month before you decided to join—lead you to believe that there was some reason to move the article, again? There's 1 person with a neutral opinion (Miwa), one person with a Moé opinion (Franzeska stating "I do like the accent on this particular word" as an argument) and 3 (one anon) against the accent.

You stated "I'm going to move this back if nobody explains this" with no basis of a need for explanation. Moe is standard by every Wikipedia style book (you still haven't told me why you believe WP:UE supports the accent, or given any sources/proof). I shouldn't be so blunt but I have no real authority on Wiki so I don't feel any need to be a polite. You should stop promoting your hobbies and start acting like a responsible admin.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion. I came in late but I still wanted a reply. Ashibaka tock 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? The reply to your question was explained before you asked it. By the way, I'm leaving it to you to move back the article because you shouldn't have done it in the first place and you shouldn't be asking casual users to clean up your messes.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer my version. But you do have a legitimate point and I wouldn't argue further if anyone else reverted it. Ashibaka tock 03:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have a big problem with your attitude. Wikipedia is not meant to be pushed by some guy who likes "my version". That's a clear POV violation (an attempt to bend Wikipedia to your own will) and a complete disregard of legitimate reason. Your refusal to correct your own error is irresponsible.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

When I edit something it is usually to a version that I like better. I like the English name used online, you like the Hepburn name. Both are backed up by their own contradictory guidelines. If you want to change it back I will not revert! Ashibaka tock 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I apologize for being insistant but as I have said, I don't approve of your conduct on this issue ("I still think it's better") and since you refuse to give any proper reason for your actions I can only consider you uncooperative. Since you performed a series of reversions based on your single edit I feel it unfair to demand of me to clean up after your mistakes, of which you yourself claim unable to defend. I decided to ask you politely once again instead of bringing this to RfC. It's a small matter but it reflects largely on your conduct as an admin, and I will not hesistate again. Thank you.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because I'm not defending my actions against Hepburnism doesn't mean I think I made the article worse. I feel I've improved it and I see no reason to revert it back myself. Ashibaka tock 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you discretely imply that "hepburnism" is the reason for your edits? Or am I just imagining that, scraping for some sort of logic? I also don't see any version of Hepburn in the last 100 years that approves or promotes the use of the character "é". My challenge stands. You have 48 hours.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I hate Hepburn. I hardly ever act on it but in this case I thought it would do the article some good. If you disagree, revert me and I will not change it back. Ashibaka tock 04:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not exist to correct your mistakes and as a sysop it is your responsibility to uphold Wikipedia's policies, not mine to enforce them for you. If you have any problems with Wiki I humbly advise you as a plain user to seek some sort of resolution on any related pages, instead of blatantly, intentionally breaking them and contributing to the pile of clean-up work that is left for the more responsible editors. I care nothing for the article and the related articles you changed, and I will not waste my time cleaning up after users that are supposed to know better; I would much use my time discovering ways to stop such useless edits ever happening again.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking threat

The following discussion has devolved into personal attacks, which is not something I like to see. I will delete any more messages related to this. If you have any more comments, contact me via e-mail. Ashibaka tock 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest not carrying out your threat of blocking for "personal attacks", especially as none have been made. Please re-read WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Ashibaka tock 03:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

#Wikipedia is an open channel, Ashibaka. When you say "i am going to block them if they keep this up", your intent is pretty clear. Take Gordon_Freeman's advice. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing that SlimVirgin made a personal attack against me and the other users on that page? Ashibaka tock 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you now changing the subject? Before you were claiming you had no idea what I was talking about. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought you were talking about something on Wikipedia. Then you quoted a comment I made on IRC and I realized you were in fact talking about things I said on IRC. Ashibaka tock 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! So if I quote a few words you said on IRC, I'm now "posting logs"? Nice try. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Listen to Mark Ryan on this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, this is very stressful! I would prefer you not bring up IRC at all. It is not relevant to the image discussion. Ashibaka tock 04:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very stressful for everyone, Ashibaka. But I didn't bring IRC into it, you did, when you used IRC instead of WP:RFC or WP:PUI or any other more reasonable place to discuss the image issue publicly and openly. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka, you're out to make trouble, as you were when you restored banned user Herschelkrustofsky's user page, as you were when you signed a post "from the cabal, tell the WIKITRUTH," and as you were tonight by trying to stir things up on IRC and threatening to block Jay and me, something you yourself would likely be blocked for. I strongly advise you to stop this behavior. Wikipedia isn't an alternative playground for people who find IRC and Wikipedia Review too dull. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't bring up old things that I've already explained were not meant to be inflammatory! And I was not trying to "stir things up" by asking for help on IRC as dozens of people do every day! Ashibaka tock 04:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And how about when you just now posted on Wikipedia Review that SlimVirgin hates you? Was that "not meant to be inflammatory"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I will let anyone else reading this judge this for themselves Ashibaka tock 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If any of the comments on this talk page offended someone, I sorely regret it, I was very stressed by the discussion. If you have any more concerns about my editing regarding this, please send me an e-mail. Ashibaka tock 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging for myself, it looks like you're the victim of another Slim-Virgin/Jayjg tag-team rape. Either way, you're going to get fucked. Your only choice is whether or not you want to pretend to enjoy it. --4.250.27.222 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a very nice thing to say! Ashibaka tock 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but if we don't talk about it, the rapists go free. --4.250.27.222 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

These two took something from you that you didn't give consensually. They raped you. Now they want you to claim that you gave it of your own free will, or they're going to beat you black and blue. This has happened to thousands of editors whose contributions could have otherwise benefited this resource.

There was some good and some bad in your contribution. There was also some good and some bad in the SlimVirgin/Jayjg contribution, but Wikipedia doesn't get the best of both, as was originally intended. Instead, it gets only the good and bad of SlimVirgin/Jayjg and a lot of rape victims like you. --4.250.27.222 16:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, dude. SlimVirgin left and she's the one who asked Jayjg to come harass me, so I don't think he will be around any more. Ashibaka tock 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate how stressful this time is for you and how you would want to get past it, but even if it doesn't happen again to you, it will keep happening to others unless we speak up. Personally, I'm not willing to be a victim. Yes, I was raped by these two. Yes, I spoke up and was beaten black and blue, but I'm no longer a victim. I'm doing something about it, and I'll keep doing something about it until these two are no longer able to rape anyone else. --4.250.27.222 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You do that. Ashibaka tock 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Ashibaka. I appreciate that. But then please explain to me what all the posting to Wikipedia Review is about, the restoration of Herschelkrustofsky's talk page, references to the cabal and wikitruth etc. I'm not asking to be confrontational. I'm genuinely wondering what's going on. I find all the trolling on Wikipedia upsetting, and I'm appalled by the Wikipedia Review people (especially today, after what has happened to Kate), and so I'm bewildered by any regular editor who would choose to be involved with them. Any explanation would be very much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

email sent please discuss off-wiki Ashibaka tock

More Wikipe-tan

Hello, Ashibaka. Thank you for introducing Wikipe-tan to English Wikipedia!

By the way, there are Wikipe's oekaki that I drew in Futaba, besides standard-type and Sockpuppet Show. I uploaded also rest of them on Commons. If you are interested, please check them. Image:Wikipe-tan_she_needs_your_help.png, Image:Wikipe-tan_donations.png. --Kasuga 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you! Ashibaka tock 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• They look fantastic to me, too! :) - Mailer Diablo 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in love. deadkid_dk 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was my drawing deleted?

The drawing that was deleted was drawn by me using colored pencil and watercolor.

It was modeled after the picture you refer to indeed. But I dont think that is a problem, as mine has obvious differences from the original. Just like the Elfen Lied drawings were modeled off of Gustav Klimt: See here: [8]

Please restore my drawing back. It took me a week to draw it. I'd like to have it displayed. And we can say who I modeled the drawing after in the caption of the image so that no doubts will remain.--Zereshk 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

undelete

Thank you for undeleting my sub-page. As you can see, MONGO deleted it again and propsed you should talk to him personaly before doing the undelete. Do you agree with him that the page should not be undeleted without him having something to say about it, specialy considering he deleted it as a speedy, twice, ignoring your decision? --Striver 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver does this all the time...he tries to supercede the concensus on an article by moving stuff either to his userspace or by creating POV forks to fit his opinions. Don't undelete his misuse of Wikipedia's pages and userpages are subject to the same rules, in that they are borrowed from Wikipedia. Just leave it deleted...Striver can bring his argument to the correct talk pages.--MONGO 00:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So what...stop messing around with it...figure out who is a troll and who isn't and Striver is one of the worst POV pushers Wikipedia has.--MONGO 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian J. Bruns

Ashibaka, thank you for assisting with the Brian Bruns article. The pageblock is good because Bruns is trying to have it deleted just because he doesn't want things known about him and he is very notable as you can see from my comments on the talk page. Cheers. --Chakabuh 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian J. Bruns & VoABot

• 02:09, 1 June 2006 Ashibaka restored "Brian J. Bruns" (accidentally deleted as an attack page)

"Restored" pages are picked up as unprotected. A time corrections for restore->reprotect (if reprotected) is hard to implement. I can try to fix del. log limits to minimize that problem though.Voice-of-All^Talk 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Required reading for visitors to my talk page

User_talk:Doc_glasgow#Thanks Ashibaka tock 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Just so you know I am not agruing with you (go ahead and oppose, I don't care anymore), I would just like to understand why you opposed better (because I don't understand). I don't understand what you mean by "Your most recent edit that gave me misgivings". Thanks for the help. ILovePlankton 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, and not taking it personally. But you would be right, You would be right if you said that about any policy because I frankly don't know anything about most policies because I have had no need for them (I just try to be nice to everyone). ILovePlankton 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel News Agency

Could you unlink Danny and change it to Danny Wool or change it to Danny? I'm not sure it even needs to because he has at least denied that it was an OFFICE action (and it wasn't User:Dannyisme), but I'm beyond caring really. The news agency doesn't get much sources--but that isn't the case with Joel Leyden... hey look there is a tangent... Kotepho 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

He did it twice, and ignored consensus both times, so there must be some sort of reason. Ashibaka tock 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Authentic Matthew

Please do not redirect this page. Thank you. Sophia 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Appologies for the above - I've now got the hang of how it's supposed to be. Sophia 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

Please do not edit protected pages. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mel that change had unanimous consent it was legit part of an edit protect template that had been there a month. He did nothing wrong jbolden1517^Talk 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you kind of ignored the talk page where you might find discussion of things like that Ashibaka tock 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be buried somewhere in the immensely lonng Talk page, but protected pages can't be edited. Exceptions are sometimes made for minor matter such as interwikis, but even then it's normal and courteous to ask the admin who protected the article first, and to state what's been done and why on the Talk page (at the bottom — not in the middle somewhere). As I'm the mediator of the current dispute at that article, it muight also have been courteous to have mentioned it to me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with the dispute, someone just requested the link and used {{editprotected}}, and there was no disagreement, so I went and edited it. WP:OWN Ashibaka tock 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Usertalk-sprotect

Thank you for adjusting the categorization. -- Avi 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Current events protection

I case you were wondering, I semi-protected the template because of vandalism like this, which went unfixed for an hour. Since it's such a high visibility template, I thought that was rather silly. But there hasn't been much vandalism since, so it's probably better unprotected. Cheers, jaco♫plane 18:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it on our watchlists. Ashibaka tock 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

(in re:)

I have been entrusted to use the tool appropriately, and do so. Any specific concerns are discussed on the Arbitration Committee mailing list and with Jimbo; this discussion has included my own use of the tool. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep

I think every successful one will qualify from here on out, fortunately there aren't too many of them ;-). NoSeptember 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

From now on you can just edit the page yourself if you like :) Ashibaka tock 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Justice Court

The Wikipedia:Justice Court is not a policy proposal, it is a group that promotes accountability of administrators by posting irresponsible on a list. Please remove it from proposals. If you need other reasons, please post on my talk page. I will put a notice that it is not a proposal on the page. Geo.plrd 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a policy proposal, it's just a proposal for a group that is obviously gonna get rejected by the community at large. WikiProjects get rejected and deleted on MFD, you know. Ashibaka tock 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent change to wikipedia?

Hello. I'm a fairly long time wikipedia editor. Recently wikipedia seems to have undergone a huge change. There are now messages such as "Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaddon"" every time I visit a page, leading me to believe that wikipedia has been backed up or something like that.

The search/find box is now at the bottom of the page, the link for editing an entire page (rather than a section) is at the bottom and looks different, and generally wikipedia looks worse.

However I recently reinstalled Windows on my computer, and it could be that my computer is messing things up. I don't have access to the internet anywhere else, at least not until next Friday at the earliest, so I can't really confirm that it's not just my computer messing things up.

Has there been an announcement of a big change at wikipedia? If so, is there a link to the announcement? Does wikipedia look the way it normally does on your computer? I hope you don't mind that I asked you. I figured I should ask an administrator and couldn't find any info on this in the village pump. Kimera757 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't loaded the stylesheet for the page. I'm not exactly sure how to fix that-- try opening up http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/common.css manually to see if you can force it to load. If you aren't using Firefox, you could try installing it to display the page with a different UA. Ashibaka tock 17:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing links and changes that fit policy of wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

Links are not commercial personal or spam and if recommended by MGA itself in customer service message responses to myself as useful resources then they are useful to this Bratz article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.109.150 (talk)

Please review an deletion made contrary to consensus

Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.

The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C

Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat

That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.

The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will restore them temporary if you would like to move them to Wiktionary where they belong. Ashibaka tock 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ISG

This is not like the SCAG. Geo. 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a Wikiproject appropriate for collecting statistics?

Geo. 21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

no Ashibaka tock 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The ISG was deleted. Due to an unforeseen event, I was not able to edit. Can I recreate the

organization provided that I deal with the issues resulting in deletion?Geo. 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. Go work on some articles. Ashibaka tock 03:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Your Feedback

Hello; I noticed you have recently contributed to the current events portal and thought you would be interested in looking at a proposal for redesigning the page. If you can, please take a look at a redesign proposal I created and provide some feedback on its talk page. So far, very little feedback has been received, and so the additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturner 05:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon

Pls explain why did you reveted my edit. Those links are imortant and relevant. --Haham hanuka 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the talk page first, please. Ashibaka tock 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You removed it because of copyright problems? --Haham hanuka 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Ashibaka tock 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lolipedia does not have a copyright problems. --Haham hanuka 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The author of that left a message on the talk page as well. Ashibaka tock 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And about the imageboards, seems that many images there have no copyright problem. --Haham hanuka 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You did research? Ashibaka tock 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the picture in the article was in one of the imageboards. --Haham hanuka 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I asked for its removal because the page isn't big yet. I think when it reached 1000 articles, it's worth considering adding it back to the links section. ^_^; --Tsaryu 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Late Tokugawa Shogunate

Never done a copy/ paste. Isn't it the other way around? Regards PHG 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Van Gogh

Thanks for the barnstar and the kind words re Vincent van Gogh. I think we're probably a month or two from peer review, depending on how much time I can find to get through the material, and possibly break out some subsidiary main articles if sections get too unwieldy. Thanks again. Stumps 06:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Firewall

Evidently you tried to send me a message. It was blocked by the firewall, I don't know why. Until I have found the reason, you'd better leave a note on my user page. Thank you. --R.P.D. 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting! Hello Shii/History5, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kat Shoob

thanks for looking at my new article. I put another reference in as requested SenorKristobbal 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG!

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:SportsCenter Nice closing statement! Do you follow copyright caselaw for kicks? - CrazyRougeian talk/email 20:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case I knew general trademark laws and used Google. If it interferes with freedom to tinker, it's something I'm concerned about. But I can't profess a law school–quality memory of every case. :) Ashibaka tock 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chelsy Davy

I just wanted to say thank you for opening up the Chelsy Davy page for me! I've got a first draft up which hopefully shall not need to be deleted. Thank you for all your help. Vickser 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Elections

Ashibaka

---

Thank you for your vote in the Esperanza Elections. Your support is much appreciated, and it means that I am now in the Council. I will continue to try my best, and if you have any questions or queries, please don't hesistate to leave me a message. Thanks again, — FireFox 15:35, 10 July '06

Lots of thanks

Thank you so much for your support in the Esperance Elections, Ashibaka! I am truly honored by your support, and look foward to helping Esperanza continue to run well. -- Natalya 01:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by --Michael C. Price on Afshar experiment page

• Dear Ashibaka, --Michael C. Price insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:

Bohr's philosophical views on the Complementarity Principle are generally seen in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.

The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am away right now and cannot mediate this. Please feel free to copy-paste this for an active admin to see. 169.244.19.83 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed you about something that others have been preventing people from telling you. If you do not receive it, please respond on your talk page. Dagedzil 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Jimbo makes mistakes

You may want to have a look. I restored this and explained myself on the talk page. Friday (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time there were three cats walking down the road and they saw a little pig building his house out of grass.

The first cat said to the pig, "I think there are some problems with the architecture of your house. It might be cheap and quick, but there are wolves coming who will want to get at you. If you built it out of stronger stuff, like bricks, then nobody could knock it down!" And the pig thought about this for a while, and they talked it over, and after an hour or so eventually he agreed and started making bricks.

The other two cats were annoyed with the first one. "Listen," said the second cat. "Don't waste your time giving advice to every little pig that you meet on the road. Time is money, you know!" Presently they came across a second pig building a house out of straw, and the second cat pushed the first one aside, saying, "Here, I'll show you how it's done. Hey pig!"

"Huh?" said the poor little pig.

"Guess what? I'm going to come back here in a week, and when I do I'll huff and puff and blow your house down!"

"Oh no!" said the pig. He covered his mouth with his hooves, looking at his fragile little creation, and started running around to find mud, stones, old bricks, anything to keep his house together when the big cat came by.

So they left the pig quite certain that his house would be much more secure. But the third cat wasn't happy. "A week?!" he groaned at the second one. "Why do you waste your time with empty threats? Cut right to the point! Time is money, you know!" Presently they came across a third pig building a house out of sticks, and the third cat pushed the second one aside, saying, "Here, I'll show you how it's done. Hey pig! I'm going to huff and puff and blow your house down, right now!"

And he did precisely that.

Ashibaka tock 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical information

There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:Historical information that you started. You may wish to continue it.—msh210℠ 07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved to userspace

I moved your Jimbo makes mistakes essay into your userspace at: User:Ashibaka/Jimbo makes mistakes, guessing that that's the best move for now? See if you can get some folks to help you edit it! :-)

(don't forget to delete the redirects btw.)

Kim Bruning 21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the best solution. I wanted my essay to be voted up or down for deletion on its merits, and then considered as one would consider WP:IAR, rather than being treated as some dumb crap one guy wrote. Please ask people before you do things like that. Ashibaka tock 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

:-( . Tactical move actually. Once things go into MFD they usually don't come out of it again very well, and the current consensus was moving towards delete. I moved it into your namespace to save it, and so that we could edit it and make it tidier. (A jimbo quote or two would be good. Have you tried asking jimbo to edit? ;-) ). Later we can move it back into the wikipedia namespace, and it'll probably stick. Kim Bruning 06:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping of asking Jimbo after a few other people had corrected it but I guess they wanted to delete it instead. C.f. my parable above. Ashibaka tock 12:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you have all the space and time you need to do so, and that was the point of the tactical maneuver. :-) Kim Bruning 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Hmph, politics... love it or hate it

Heh, okay. Thanks. Ashibaka tock 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Myrtone86

Myrtone86 sent me an e-mail regarding his block for "disruption" that I wasn't involved at WP:AN/I. I left him a message with a copy of e-mail on his talk page. Is there a reason why you unblocked him if you feel the block is inappropriate? -- ADNghiem501 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore this, he wasn't looking for me. [9]. -- ADNghiem501 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you overturn my block when it had the approval of four other editors on WP:ANI [10] (which you did or should have seen, as I said I had provided an expanded rationale on Myrtone's talk page), with no voices against, without seeking consensus there or even doing me the courtesy of informing me on my talk page? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because he e-mailed me and was nice about it. Ashibaka tock 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's it? You didn't think for a second that you should have gone to ANI and said "Myrtone sent me a nice email, I think he should be unblocked" before overturning a unanimously approved block? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and block him again. That's the sort of thanks I get for trying to do something friendly here. Ashibaka tock 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be rather pointless now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"French popular music" article

Hello, Ashibaka. I noticed the following message in your user page:

"I am a sysop and can help you with retrieving deleted content if you need it."

May I take you up on that offer? And can I ask you to look up "French popular music"? The template {{frenchmusic}} suggests that French popular music may have existed at one time and deleted, or maybe it was never created in the first place. In any case I am interested in creating that article, and any information would be helpful. Thank you very much for your help.--Endroit 15:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Ashibaka tock 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, saw that. Thank you. Writing the article from scratch is no problem. I'll just have to start out with a small article or a stub.--Endroit 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh

You ruined my block message on Stephencolbert... ahh, (ps, I've left a voicemail requesting confirmation, please wait) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawker (talk • contribs)

Adding actual verifiable fact to article on elephants

ok, so I did it incorrectly...please help me add the information properly? If you check the sources, you will find that it is not a joke, and deserves to be part of the article on elephants.

Sorry  forgot to sign: MathStatWoman 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, shii. I'd appreciate your help with an article

If you have the time, help me expand this, please. --Saoshyant 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Saoshyant 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

Thanks for expanding the Nicoleño article I made a stub for. We probably have the best Nicoleño article in the world now :) Ashibaka tock 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, dude! That means a lot.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : User:Ashibaka/b

That made my day. BBBBB forever! =D - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Mashadardahal1.jpg

Long live the B!

Oh, I wasn't even thinking about the Newgrounds thing. But hey, it works too! Ashibaka tock 15:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hope you won't mind if I adopted it for a week? :) - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead! Ashibaka tock 16:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ta-ta! Yayness! =D - Mailer Diablo 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Crap, the "b" wasn't actually orange... Ashibaka tock 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [11]

Other Admins contacted [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply

GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [17]

• GoldToeMarionette Contributions
• Breakdown of GoldToeMarionette's Posts
• Example post to 66 article contributors
• Example post removal from 66 article contributors
• HereToCleanup's Contributions
• No AfD participation

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. RealTime 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a permanent ban on anyone who runs through a list of more than 20 Wikipedia user talk pages to tell them to join an AfD discussion. Ashibaka tock 03:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So the first time a user does something you think it is a good idea to permanently ban them? They don't get a warning? You don't ask them to not do it again? Does that action help to build the community? RealTime 05:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser seems more than ample evidence to me. I don't know what "inappropriate" means here but the account was obviously a sockpuppet spammer. Ashibaka tock 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, the account was neither a sockpuppet nor a spammer. If you read above you will see that WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming specifically allows posting to promote elections etc. The account, did not violate any policies because it complied with WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming. A user must violate policy to be a sockpuppet per WP:SOCK. Therefore since there was no policy violation, there was no sockpuppeting, there should not have been any checkuser or blocking. I hope this makes sense because it is very clear on those policy pages. I would appreciate your reading the policy pages and responding per them. RealTime 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am banning you for Wikilawyering. Ashibaka tock 23:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read some policy pages. This is a good one WP:WL, and the other two I cited above are good ones too. It is so disappointing to me how many Admins don't understand Wikipedia policies or just plain don't care to. If you don't understand the policies, don't just say "Oh, that user is Wikilawyering". Actually try to understand what is going on. I hope you will do better in the future. Good luck to you. CandlePower 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm okay. Thanks for the suggestion. Ashibaka tock 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I am confused. You said you would read the policy pages so that you would understand Wikipedia, but then you went and blocked that account. Now I had to create another account. Why did you do that? Didn't you read and learn before blocking? WhyOhWhy 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Ashibaka tock 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I had checked User:RealTime's contributions and worked out that he was spamming all admins beginning with A and had made no other contriutions other than to set up his user page. Very boring - my response was to ignore - but I was busy in real life too. I too support a permanent ban on anyone who runs through a list of more than 20 Wikipedia user talk pages to tell them to join an AfD discussion. --A Y Arktos\^talk 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am contacting Admins in an effort to get someone to look at this, but I think it unfair to say it is spamming. I am disappointed at how freely the spam term is used. I posted to a few Admin pages, I hardly see how that can be construed as spam. RealTime 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Definate sockpuppet of poolguy, as that's his manifesto. He's going through the entire admin list, with different sockpuppets. He's banned by exhaustion of community's patience. Kevin_b_er 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy, let me outline my ethic of amnesty for you:

• Banned user returns to continue contributing non-controversial content: fine by me, I've done that myself on another site.
• Banned user returns to ask why he was banned: also fine by me, I've done that myself as well on yet another site.
• Banned user returns to continue doing the stuff that got him banned in the first place: No.
• Banned user returns to snub the people who would unban him and invent his own interpretation of the rules: Nope, sorry.

Ashibaka tock 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for trying a little with this. I would like to respond to your outline. First, I do contribute, but please excuse me if I don't announce the accounts I edit under. Some people think it fine to treat me like dirt for no basis.

• I know why I was banned. I have asked Admins to explain why GoldToeMarionette was blocked and checkusered. Simple thing is no one would talk to me. I would explain why I felt the action was inappropriate and others would say things like 'I am banning you for Wikilawyering.' - Well that only goes so far. I have not tried to read between the lines of Wikipedia policy, but the real clear stuff in plain english. Forgive me if I don't appreciate comments like that, because that comment to means simply means they reject what is established Wikipedia policy. Since I explain that the action was inappropriate because the posts conform with policy, some Admins don't like that. Rather than engage in the conversation they will come out on the short end with, they think it easier to block me and ban me for exhausting the community's patience. Had someone talked to me in a reasonable manner back in March, I never would have been banned for doing one thing. The one thing I have done has been to ask for an explanation of how the action conformed with the policy. I believe that can't be done, so I ask the action be undone. Since noone wants to undo it and demonstrate a couple Admins were wrong, they would rather play the blocking and banning game.

• You say a user can ask why they were banned. Essentially I am asking why the Admin action on GoldToeMarionette was justified. I think you would agree that a user should get an answer. I don't get answers. I get blocks. Since then, users see that I keep getting blocked, so I must be bad. However I only say one thing, and seek an answer. I have tried all of the other avenues I could find with no one caring to dialogue with me. So now I am down to posting to individual Admins. I am patient, so I will eventually get to all of them. I hope that won't happen because there must be one willing enough and smart enough to engage in a reasonable dialogue.

• In terms of snubbing, I apologize if you feel offended. I think you would agree that my post to you was calm and reasoned. You however left your first comment to me as the solution to a user doing something inappropriate was to permanently ban them. Personally I think a better approach would be to post a message on their account advising them it was inappropriate and asking them to stop. Police don't shoot a kid who took a pack of gum from a store. Your response to me was like that. In fact in my experience, that is how most Admins act around here. Very disappointing.

So, if Admins want to keep shooting kids for taking a pack of gum, fine. I will keep looking for the one who will talk to the kid.

If trying to talk to an Admin is wrong, then someone should write a policy saying so. AFter all, it is not my fault that no one will talk to me. It is the fault of the Admin community. In the mean time I will keep looking. TurnedAroundAgain 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Personally I think a better approach would be to post a message on their account advising them it was inappropriate and asking them to stop." But that user is you. We don't pretend that each sockpuppet is a new and unique person (although some users are rather schizophrenic about it, like saying "I am Jtdirl's Sockpuppet"). We know it's you, and you were using it to do something that is distinctly frowned upon by the community. No dice. And defending that by citing the definitions of sockpuppet and spamming as they are defined in the book of rules is definitely not enough for me, although maybe you will find some sympathetic admin way down along the line. Ashibaka tock 01:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that user is me. Take a look at the PoolGuy account from its inception until March. A mild user with some contributions to various articles who caused no problems for years. Then what happened to make me a public enemy? TurnedAroundAgain 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your block log I would guess it was from creating sixty zillion sockpuppets once you got temporarily blocked over a trivial thing. But I don't know anything about you specifically, I'm just guessing. Ashibaka tock 02:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How is using a multiple account to ask a question a blockable offense? Besides, that all occurred after GoldToeMarionette was blocked. Had GoldToeMarionette not been blocked and someone cared to dialogue, no accounts related to that would have been created. TurnedAroundAgain 02:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are there a hundred located multiple accounts? Well some users think blocking is a solution to everything. TurnedAroundAgain 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, one Admin without much tact went around pursuing me on a block spree. That sure doesn't help having a dialogue. TurnedAroundAgain 02:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the action that is distinctly frowned upon by the community is what is so distinctly written into the Internal spamming guideline on how to post to others about an issue. My basic point all along is that if it is frowned upon, it should not be given as direction on a guideline page. Also, while it was a multiple account, it violated no policy, sockpuppets as written in the policy are bad when they do bad things. I contend nothing bad was done. Well, frowned upon, we obviously see that later by the intensity of the reactions. TurnedAroundAgain 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the ArbCom case real quick, and I think I get the idea here. If you stop making sockpuppets and accept your community ban as a ban then I'll unblock PoolGuy, and not Marionette, in two months. That's all. All your arguing will not make me any more lenient. Ashibaka tock 02:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a real nice offer, but not at all what I am saying. GoldToeMarionette should be unblocked because the administrative action was inappropriate. If it was appropriate, I would like to know why. With an explanation of why the Admin action was appropriate, please be prepared for me to counter.

You see this is not about my being able to edit with PoolGuy, it is about some Admins taking inappropriate action and ultimately, no one has been willing to recognize that. It happened to me and it happens to so many others in Wikipedia. It is not good for the community for users to be harassed for disagreeing with the action of those with power. Recognition that a mistake was made, or action was taken counter to what is written in policy, or stating that despite what policy says the Admins actually enforce policies differently are all reasonable means of dialogue. Basically, GoldToeMarionette should be unblocked because that action was so harsh and did not take into account that someone may not have the benefit of understanding the culture as Admins do. People perceive this thing differently, and dialogue is the best means to working that out.

High volume users need to tolerate some misunderstandings from low volume users. The hostility from a block creates a bad atmosphere, and I probably would have accepted it if clearly justified. I was blocked for a 3rr because I did not know and understand it. I apologized to the Admin after doing it because I try to be a good Wikipedian. With the posting to article contributors, I thought that was fine. When hit with Admin action, I tried dialogue but that was returned with ever increasing hostility. I must say I truly appreciate your dialogue. I am glad I did not have to get out of the A's to finally advance this dialogue.

So, what do you think? Am I nuts and unreasonable? Or does this seem possible disregarding the insanity that has escalated since March? TurnedAroundAgain 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the ArbCom ruling is correct and you should not be allowed to use that account. I agree that Wikipedia has problems but blocking extra user accounts is, quite frankly, petty business. Also, I myself would not unblock it because it was used solely for campaigning, which I disapprove of.

I don't think you understand the point here. If GoldToeMarionette were a separate person I would give them a second chance. But you are GoldToeMarionette. We don't regard you as two separate entities. Ashibaka tock 03:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, my action taken as a lone contributor, using one account would have been deserving of a block? I understand that you may not like campaigning, and others may not like campaigning but it happens all the time. Take a look at [18]. There is campaigning that goes on all the time in various forms. In addition the guideline at WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming gives instruction on how to do it and be in compliance with Wikipedia. Multiple account aside, I don't think there was anything that a reasonable Admin should have seen as blockable.

That brings it down to it was a multiple account. The account did one thing, in conformance with a Wikipedia guideline, and was ultimately just blocked for being a multiple account. That in and of itself is not blockable, though Admins do it all the time. I don't like that, and I think it reasonable for the action to be undone on those merits.

I am sorry you can't help. I understand that you don't like campaigning. I won't ask you to unblock the account since you don't agree that it should be allowed. Since community concensus does allow it and does allow the use of multiple accounts (regardless of how people feel about it) I will keep looking for an Admin to undo the action. I am sorry if people think it is disruptive, but frankly, I view the disruption as caused by those who acted inappropriately in the first place, and then seek to silence a user who simply complied with what was and is community concensus.

Good luck in here. I enjoyed chatting with you. TurnedAroundAgain 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Israeli apartheid" AfD

Why the self-revert? -- ChrisO 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sysop status isn't a license to put a slap-down on out of control discussions. The discussion is ultimately going nowhere and is turning into a straight vote, but if someone wants to waste their time on it I guess that's none of my business. In, like, 3 or 4 days someone will have to close it anyway. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the discussion is out of control (though it is); it's that the original nomination was a clear abuse of policy by a user with a recent history of (and blocking for) abusing AfD. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Abuse of deletion process is absolutely clear on this point and equally clear about the remedy (i.e. speedy keeping). If someone wants to re-start the AfD, fair enough, but this particular one needs to be closed. Your original decision to close the vote as an invalid nomination was spot on, in my opinion. -- ChrisO 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

TBQH I reverted because I saw SlimVirgin voting to delete, and dark clouds loomed on the horizon. Thanks, but I'd rather just wait it out 3 days. Ashibaka tock 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling that might be the case... SV is way out of line on this one, unfortunately. I suspect we'll need to have a bit of an inquest after this mess is all over. -- ChrisO 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam

This is just to inform you that the Hilary Putnam trial has been restarted from scratch by Raul. I noticed that you voted to support during the first trial, but that vote has been annulled. This seems rather totalitarian to me. If you would like to revote, please go ahead and do so. Thank you.---Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

rjensen Block

I see you have controlled rjensen under a 3RR ruling. As far as I can see, this guy is a very hard working editor. Unfortunately, if someone does a lot of work on a particular article, he could also upset some others. Could you not talk with him, and make an exception in this case, and remove the block, and also evidence of the block. Thank you Wallie 08:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Move request tags

Hi. Just a friendly reminder to please remove the {{move}} or {{rename}} tags when you close out move requests. Otherwise, Category:Requested moves becomes cluttered with moves that are no longer current. Thanks.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops... sorry. Ashibaka tock 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mexico123

Long overdue... Thanks. --David Mestel^(Talk) 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Ashibaka, if you're confused and don't know anything about it, why would you revert me on the basis of one post from an anon using AOL? :-) It's a complicated issue, involving about two dozen accounts and perhaps the same number of IPs, which has been going on for eight months at least, and I'm discussing it with some people who already know part of the background. I'll certainly let you know the outcome. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ormulum

I managed three pages of the Hypnerotomachia (in the 1592 translation) before my eyelids slammed shut in self-defence, while my record for the Ormulum is ten lines, so I'll stand by the claim. :P — Haeleth Talk 11:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)