NobutoraTakeda (talk | contribs) |
NobutoraTakeda (talk | contribs) →Blocked: blueboy made a stupid comment and I am replying here |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
:And before you try to pick on me, look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_chess it is common practice to question others in the way that I have questioned! It is obvious that there isn't any policy violation or rule breaking, but one admin who is angry that I challenged his closing. [[User:NobutoraTakeda|NobutoraTakeda]] 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
:And before you try to pick on me, look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_chess it is common practice to question others in the way that I have questioned! It is obvious that there isn't any policy violation or rule breaking, but one admin who is angry that I challenged his closing. [[User:NobutoraTakeda|NobutoraTakeda]] 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
:And Isotope can claim all he wants, but it isn't coincidence that he blocked me while other people have seen that same "possible". [[User:NobutoraTakeda|NobutoraTakeda]] 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
:And Isotope can claim all he wants, but it isn't coincidence that he blocked me while other people have seen that same "possible". [[User:NobutoraTakeda|NobutoraTakeda]] 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
About Blueboy's claim on the Administrators's noticeboard that Istope is too much of a coward and bully to let me defend myself at. |
|||
" * Good block--especially since he tripped himself up by claiming he didn't know how to do an AfD, but nearly all of his contribs were to AfDs. Quack, quack. Blueboy96 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
And something else ... may want to consider relisting any articles that were deleted as a result of his nominations at WP:DRV, for procedural reasons only. I've already found one ... Blueboy96 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)" |
|||
Its called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion "If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion and the guide to deletion may help you understand why an article has been nominated. Once that's done, see how to list pages for deletion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion "How to list pages for deletion |
|||
This section describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. |
|||
Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III. |
|||
To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:" |
|||
Blueboy's comment is stupid. And if its "quack quack" how many Articles for deletion did that Sanchi guy do? Huh? [[User:NobutoraTakeda|NobutoraTakeda]] 01:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:45, 19 July 2007
Welcome!
Hello, NobutoraTakeda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at some of your activity since welcome - PLEASE read more about wikipedia before getting too involved with the issues that you hava manged to to stir up SatuSuro 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for being condensending and hiding behind a talk page that can't be edit. For preaching about rules you sure act rude. NobutoraTakeda 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Others comments
Nonsense. One merge vs 4/5 keeps when the AfD isn't even a day old does NOT give you call to merge anything. I also refuse to believe you're a new user, who are you? —Xezbeth 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
One merge and two deletes and one person who says keep the main page and relist the others for delete. You have a problem with the truth. NobutoraTakeda 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You were the one that brought up the AfD for the Chaos Space Mrines page. At the very least, you should wait for the final vote "tally" before changing the pages. Escpecially as the cnsensus at the moment is for keep. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- For someone that's "writing about on a topic I couldn't care less about" you have a lot of reference material, and your editting style is very similar. Are you SanchiTachi by any chance? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Warning=
Nominating a succession of obviously notable articles for deletion as the only WP activity does not look like an intent to contribute to the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Warning? It doesn't take much to realize that I'm not some person who hasn't edit before just because I never had a registered name before. Aren't you supposed to be welcoming, not a condensing like the guy above? NobutoraTakeda 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- As per you new message on my talk page - what? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then please use his talk page, not mine. Cheers.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Condescending
(1) Is how it is spelt. (2) I offered a welcome when you challenged the notability of an article (3) asking you to read the welcome - simply noting you are going into areas that more experienced editors usually go - not first day editors (4) please show me specifically how I am rude and I will gladly apologise - as there is the basic issue of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - which I will gladly abide by - I am, not hiding - if you wish to continue your WP:Civility thats fine - do it here - it is your activity that has raised the above comments from other editors in the first place. Take care! Enjoy the place SatuSuro 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1. Correcting my spelling is showing that you are being condescending. 2. I never asked you to offer me a welcome. 3. First day editor? You mean first day registered. I've edited Wikipedia without an account for about a year now. 4. If you aren't hiding, why is your talk page not editable? NobutoraTakeda 01:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well - a number of apologies.
- (1) If you do not like your spelling corrected - so be it - dont bite or accuse others of an action which is simply wanting to help - one should always assume WP:AGF
- (2) When I ventured to challenge your notability question at an obscure west australian history list - I noted only what looked like a first day user.
- (3) I never asked you to offer me a welcome is a very fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is about - an assumption of AGF - with an empty talk page and new user gives any editor the right to welcome you - regardless of your subesequent reaction.
- (4) Nothing to to with hiding - I had received messages from others - I have no idea about my talk page I'll get it checked. Enjoy being a registered user - cheers SatuSuro 01:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you say one and then say two? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? 3. You expect me to be greatful about you giving me a welcome. I only registered for two reasons, one getting a message saying the features that could happen with registering and two when I saw that I could talk on the delete pages which I originally thought were just for admin. You jumped on me at the same time as the other guy gave me the same warning on three different pages and another guy was saying "new user alert" like people are second rate. NobutoraTakeda 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
New user
NobutoraTakeda, I see I'm not the only one with doubts about your authenticity. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was entirely factual, and I make no apologies. -- "this user's first-ever edit was 18 hours before this one, and has engaged in only deletion matters." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Chaos Space Marines
You mean have a page for 2nd edition Chaos Codex, 3rd edition, 3.5 edition and 4th edition (when it's released)? If that's what you mean, then sorry, I couldn't agree to that. That seems to have less merit than the current page(s). If that's not what you mean, then I apologise, as I've misunderstood. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
List of State Leaders
No, I make it a point to be rude wherever I go. I'll take your suggestion and look at the other article you referenced, but the ongoing project has a lot of contributors. You aren't going to win on this one. Mandsford 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, let me explain my reasoning without being rude. In response to your point about the king who reigns for 60 years, he may be on 60 lists, but there are hundreds of leaders who come and go during that time. The list of world leaders is in change almost every year. Take, for instance, the Emperor Hirohito... he began his rule when Calvin Coolidge was President of the United States, and lived until George H.W. Bush, so that was 13 different American leaders during a 64 year rule. All of the other leaders from 1925 were gone by 1989. What I like about the state leaders lists is that I can pick a year-- let's say 1776 or 1492-- and in one place, I have a list of the nations that existed in the world and who was the leader in each nation. I remember that the World Almanac used to have two pages devoted to all the current leaders. Moreover, since there are articles about nearly everyone of those nations and leaders, I can quickly navigate my way over to the article about the nation or the person. Nations have come and gone over the centuries, though at a slower rate than the rise and fall of leaders. You might not run across, say republics like Hatay, or Biafra or Aragon without, in effect, surfing this. I find it to be very useful. Mandsford 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it doesn't just go on for 21 pages solely about Natakamani, the King of Kush. Without even looking, I know that Augustus Caesar was there, and Tiberius Caesar, and lots of leaders who reigned during that period from 1BC to 20AD. Kush just happened to be stable during that time, perhaps, and had the same leader 21 years in a row. There are some years where there were no known changes in the leaders of the world's nations, of course. I find it useful to know who was "in the news" in 1 AD. -- and if I want to find out more about Natakamani or anyone else during that period, all I have to do is click and I learn more about the man than merely his name. It doesn't bother me that Natakamani is at 1 AD and 10 AD and 20 AD... it's an illustration of the march of time, the rise and fall of notable persons, etc. To me, that's what history is all about. Mandsford 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but perhaps you should ask yourself why this irritates you so much. I'll grant you, sometimes I get mad over something that's been said or done on Wikipedia, and I sometimes have to remind myself that I shouldn't worry about what someone else thinks. Once, I got in a bitter exchange with someone who lives in Australia, and I live in a small town in Kentucky... and I had to laugh when I started thinking, I'm getting angry over something that a guy on the other side of the world from me wrote. I see your point, but is it worth getting upset over? Life's too short, my friend. By the way, since I know that your name is Nobutora Takeda, I'll introduce myself-- Mark Ford, from Harlan, Kentucky. I've enjoyed chatting with you, I apologize for my earlier attack on you, and I'm going to edit the page to simply change my vote to "strong keep" without additional comment. Mandsford 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I was offline for awhile, but wanted to check and leave a parting message-- it's 11:20 here and long day. One of the things about the list of years with lots of red links is that people, including myself, are slowly creating a list for a particular year. It's easy, as you can imagine, to create the list of leaders in 154 BC by copying the list from 153 BC and changing it as necessary... hence the redundancy. Still, a lot of people seem to enjoy working backward through history. It's one of the easiest ways to "create" an article-- cheating, practically-- but it has its use, because people have been creating the lists that way for quite some time, working their way from one year to the next adjacent year. I've noticed along the way, however, that this method of creating the list for year "n-1" from the list for year "n" has its own problem. As you might guess, if someone has omitted a nation (say, for instance, an Aztec king), it's not on any list. In that instance, one should update. That's what I like about Wikipedia, however, is that it can be updated as soon as one finds new information. Not only that, who's going to vandalize a list of leaders in 154 BC? Anyway, best wishes, I'm signing off, I'll see you around AfD. Mandsford 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
July 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thewinchester (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not going to fly with me - particularly on a policy. Don't modify any policy pages no matter how trivial without taking it up on it's talk page or at the village pump first. And in your specific case, I would suggest this advice is quite pertinent considering the sheer number of people including senior project members from across the globe that you have already got offside with. Thewinchester (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Thewinchester may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Orderinchaos 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- User talk pages, from the point of view of dumping piles of numbers and random crap on them, are within user space. Further instances will be reported to WP:AIV. Orderinchaos 16:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orderinchaos warned you and expanded that what you were adding to my talk page constituted vandalism, and i'm totally inclined to agree with him. As per my previous comment to you, I strongly suggest you take heed of the warnings and comments on your talk page, as it's plain and obvious to anyone that you have caused significant discontent in the community with your actions. Thewinchester (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not the user who gave you the warning, so I can't answer that question. As is now being advised for the third time, you need to take that up with the user who issued you the warning. Thewinchester (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The diffs were here and here. I don't see how this could be interpreted as anything *but* vandalism. I stand by my warning to you. Orderinchaos 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest reading WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Orderinchaos 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Threatening and wikilawyering with admins is really not a good way to get ahead in this place. I'd strongly suggest that if you actually want to stay here for a while, learn how the place works and learn to work with the community. I personally find it sad when new editors go to the wall rather than listen to advice, and by reading your talk page, I can see you've had plenty of thoughtful, considered advice given to you in the last couple of days from a range of editors. I hope that you take some of it on board and can become a productive editor here. Orderinchaos 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest reading WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. Orderinchaos 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The diffs were here and here. I don't see how this could be interpreted as anything *but* vandalism. I stand by my warning to you. Orderinchaos 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I wasn't the one who warned you for vandalism. If you disagree with the warning, then you can take it up on the talkpage of the user who gave it to you. I just agree with their justification for the warning based on your actions. If you want to Wikilawyer then that's fine by me - but what complaint do you have against me if I wasn't the one who warned you? The answer to the question is self-evident. Thewinchester (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not the user who gave you the warning, so I can't answer that question. As is now being advised for the third time, you need to take that up with the user who issued you the warning. Thewinchester (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I beg to differ on the claim of rudeness, and I can see from this diff just added to your talkpage by another user who is an administrator that you're trying to accuse someone of the same things you are being seen to do. My conversation has been nothing but polite and reasonable, the only impolite things and threats I can see have been written by yourself. You have already been reasonably advised what to do about the vandalism issue and there is nothing more worth talking about here as I'm not the one you need to be taking it up with, as has been explained. I simply wish you good day and hope you learn something from this. Thewinchester (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Where is that claim? I have not claimed that you have broke a rule based on a warning, that claim would have been made in template by whomever the user was who issued you the warning. If are somehow trying to imply that I sought out assistance to have you warned, there is no factual or evidentially basis for such a claim, and from what I can see the user in question who issued you the warning did so independently. If you are trying to say that my edit summary is the sole basis of this issue, then you have no basis as the content reverted was that you were warned for but chose to re-add, therefore an edit summary of WP:VAND is highly appropriate in this case as it was the re-addition of material that was already deemed to be vandalism. Again, I would refer you to my previous comments advising to speak with whoever the user was who gave you the warning and at this juncture I specifically request that you refrain from circular arguments and any further discussion regarding this matter on my talk page. Thewinchester (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see anything that is either condesending or snide, and the exact content being posted on your talk page by me is being posted on mine verbatim. I'm not going to post anything on someone else's talk page that i'm not comfortable posting on my own. Your last sentence tells me that you never saw this episode of The Simpsons. And remember, there is only a cabal if you want there to be one. Thewinchester (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- there is only a cabal if you want there to be one. As for the claim of WP:OWN, like the user you claim has acted in a cabal with me, this article is also the first ever star trek article I've touched in 1yr and ~5,000 wikipedia edits. You've just made another baseless claim which shows bad faith on your part. This is now the second time I will be asking you, please cease and desist posting on my talk page, as you are now pushing well over and above the boundaries of WP:POINT. All reasonable and fair opportunities has been provided to you to resolve whatever complaint you may have in a fair and reasonable manner, all of which is documented here and you have failed to use. Further posts on this talk page will be considered in the context of relevant wikipolicy and pursued accordingly. Thewinchester (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- My request to ask you to stop is there, Again, I would refer you to my previous comments advising to speak with whoever the user was who gave you the warning and at this juncture I specifically request that you refrain from circular arguments and any further discussion regarding this matter on my talk page. If you read the edit summary, the AfD tag was incorrectly placed and instructions given on how to correctly list it. Again, you can't make WP:OWN. This is now the third and final request for you to refrain from posting on my talk page. Any further posts will be considered in the context of relevant wikipolicy and pursued accordingly. You can see that I don't get worn out easily, and you're not acheiving anything by making baseless claim after baseless claim. The sooner you realise this and go do something productive on the wiki other than the AfD queue you seem to live in, then you'll be better off for it. Thewinchester (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also request that you stop there. For your own sake. This editor is unreasonable, illogical and as the old saying goes: "Never argue with a fool, the spectators may not be able to tell the difference." This editor calls upon his wiki friends to enter debates and make comments when they are ill-informed and unqualified to comment. He doesn't practice what he preaches, cites and applies wikilaw at will even when irrelevant and when he lacks throrough understanding of it. Surrender now because "he doesn't tire easily". Tire from being a stain on the wikipedia bedsheet, that is. Don't argue on his talk page OR ELSE. It's done his way or you're looking at a ban due to WP:BULLSHIT or WP:IMFULLOFSHIT or WP:IMASHITEDITOR or WP:CLOSEDMINDED.Sammy lightfoot
Politeness
- Hi NobutoraTakeda. Please don't be rude to people, it is not improving anthing. There are lots of ways to help, try to do so. Thanks Fred ☻ 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for your reply. I do know the editors, but would you like me to help resolve any problem? Fred ☻ 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can see there is a problem. As I said, they are both good editors in my view. OrderinChaos is always polite and has earned the respect of many other editors, it earned him a honour, adminship. There is an basic issue of communication, here I believe, if you would like to present an argument or contribute in some other way, I would be more than happy to help anyone do that. That is why we are here, to improve the document through a cooperative process. Please feel free to ask me, if you think that I can assist with this. Regards, Fred ☻ 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon my delay in responding. I promise to have a good look at this, but it will take a little while. The discussion will continue for a couple of days, would you like to have another go at it tomorrow? This will give me time to find a way to help. In the mean time, read up on the list versus category discussions. There are a lot of different views, but sometimes it is obviously better to have a category. We might be able to show that clearly. It is an interesting topic of discussion. I am sorry that you did not think your views were being heard, that can be very frustrating. The warnings will have no affect if you are politely putting your views, you might avoid posting on the editors pages for a little while. I am here for a while, but shall we wait until tomorrow? Regards Fred ☻ 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. This is getting plainly tedious to watch - if you don't want to get blocked in the near future, I'd strongly suggest behaving more nicely towards fellow editors, who are here to help and develop the encyclopedia. Several of the people you've managed to get on the wrong side of today are very solid and respected contributors with a long history of community involvement and engagement. Zivko85 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look - if someone had posted that to my talk page I would have probably reverted it too, although I can see that it's not entirely random, as the numbers appear to be in some sort of order - but I am not seeing *why* it was posted. The warning you received seems fair, and there was no threat to block - it was more of a "cease and desist, please". Regarding civility and harassment, I've also seen you accuse people of lying and various other rather serious allegations which is why I started this topic on your talk page. Unfortunately, if you treat people that way, there's a high likelihood that you'll get something back for it. Also, the very people you insult today could be the ones reviewing your complaint tomorrow. Also, to open an RfC, you need to have certifying users and a coherent case - if you're hoping to simply repeat the vague and unsubstatiated allegations you have already made here and elsewhere against people, your case will be shut down faster than you can say "boo", and probably get blocked for disruption along the way. It's not too late to pull out of your downward wikispiral - all you have to do is just be nicer to people and be a bit more relaxed. Always remember too that Wikipedia is not real life and these people are names on a screen - stop taking them so seriously! If you feel that frustrated, have a coffee or take a walk or something. Zivko85 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Rebutting discussions on AfD
Please, stop fighting everyone who disagrees with you at AfD. Disagreement doesn't mean they disrespect you. It doesn't have anything to do with you personally. Your constant rebuttals and repeated comments are making you look hostile and defensive, and are likely making editors think that you are nominating these articles out of some kind of spite. That is going to get editors to vote to keep the articles because they're concerned you're not doing this in good faith yourself. Simply present the article for deletion and let the community decide. It shouldn't matter to you, not in the tiniest, tiniest bit, that they disagree with you. --Charlene 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would second this; your points will be considered by the closing admin. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thirded. In my opinion you need to just chill out a bit, by all means provide the community with your opinion but stop chasing every single editor who disagrees with you. It's not worth it because you'll diminish your contribution with every unnecessary rebuttal. Take it easy, The Rambling Man 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- And to reply to what you wrote on my talk page: there is a difference between discussion and haranguing editors who don't agree with you. If you don't see that your words appear hostile and far too pushy, perhaps you need to step away from AfD. --Charlene 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
please read
Please familarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. In particular, please read:
Rember to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 05:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- You sure about the Britannica? Orderinchaos 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I said there was an electronic version. It doesn't take much to type in Encyclopedia Britannica and find it: http://www.britannica.com/ What is with people unwilling to actually look on their own and just discuss based on their own ignorance? NobutoraTakeda 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- An online version of a paper encyclopaedia (which I was aware existed) is *somewhat* different to an electronic encyclopaedia with the sort of interlinkages and server issues Wikipedia has to negotiate on a daily basis. This is why the above three linked policies and guidelines exist. Orderinchaos 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strangely, I have better things to do than argue with someone who won't listen to a wealth of advice from a diversity of individuals and would rather proceed towards a definite outcome of being blocked for disruption. One of those things is improving articles. Please do not post on my talk page again. Orderinchaos 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
I've blocked this account indefinitely. Taking the "Possible" connection to indef blocked User:SanchiTachi along with this account's edit history, I see a strong indication that this is a sockpuppet account. Beyond that, this account has been creating all kinds of disruption at multiple AFDs, essentially pestering various editors over their !votes. I'll be posting a block review of this at WP:ANI. you are free to request an unblock via template or email as well.--Isotope23 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a Democracy. Voting does not make rules. I have the right to ask people about their "votes" in a DISCUSSION PAGE. NobutoraTakeda 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- You do to an extent, but your excessive hounding of other editors that they actually don't mean the !vote they are opining is disruptive.--Isotope23 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is what a reasonable person had to say on the issue: "Every user that posts to a discussion is trying to influence the outcome; there's nothing wrong with that. Yes, the user has been banned. That prevents them from making further changes; I don't think it means that the contributions they've already made should be disregarded without specific reason to do so. In this case, the argument the user made seemed reasonable. Yes, the user could no longer respond, but that should simply be noted; the comment should not be stricken. I know very well about RBI, but it doesn't say anything about reverting all changes. I'm not trying to enshrine this user, just trying to determine the cause of an action I disagree with.--Eyrian 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)"
- It seems that you went out of your way to block someone who disagreed with you. I don't abuse the block power to get rid of people who don't support me. I use words and evidence unlike a coward. NobutoraTakeda 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Lots of people disagree with me. My talk archives are full of comments from people who do and they all remain unblocked. At least we have something in common; I don't abuse the block power to get rid of people who don't support me either... just those who are very likely sockpuppeting.--Isotope23 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- You just admitted that you probably looked it up to find out if you could find me similar to a blocked person who you could have an excuse to block someone without being challenged. What impartiality you have. NobutoraTakeda 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? I came across your edits yesterday and was struck by how similar they were to Tanchi. I noticed the AFD after that from your contribution log and closed it after reading through it (and for the record, I don't think anyone is going to mistake me for a Star Trek fan given my AFD history on those articles). I then noticed the WP:RFCU where it was indicated you were possibly IP related to Tanchi. I did some more investigation. I blocked. Sorry, but I didn't conveniently find someone to tie you to.--Isotope23 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thats a load of BS. If you came across that, you would have seen that the other admin didn't find that it warranted a block. You went out of your way to find a ground to block me and you gave a piss poor excuse right now just so you could get rid of someone who challenged you. NobutoraTakeda 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? I came across your edits yesterday and was struck by how similar they were to Tanchi. I noticed the AFD after that from your contribution log and closed it after reading through it (and for the record, I don't think anyone is going to mistake me for a Star Trek fan given my AFD history on those articles). I then noticed the WP:RFCU where it was indicated you were possibly IP related to Tanchi. I did some more investigation. I blocked. Sorry, but I didn't conveniently find someone to tie you to.--Isotope23 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- You just admitted that you probably looked it up to find out if you could find me similar to a blocked person who you could have an excuse to block someone without being challenged. What impartiality you have. NobutoraTakeda 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Lots of people disagree with me. My talk archives are full of comments from people who do and they all remain unblocked. At least we have something in common; I don't abuse the block power to get rid of people who don't support me either... just those who are very likely sockpuppeting.--Isotope23 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- You do to an extent, but your excessive hounding of other editors that they actually don't mean the !vote they are opining is disruptive.--Isotope23 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
NobutoraTakeda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Possible means nothing. The only "strong indication" is by users who are upset when OWNing a page. There is no proof to the allegations above and where is the proof that there is any connection to my edit history? And disruptions? I have done nothing different than everyone else at the AFDs, which is discussing issues and questioning people's points. AFD is for discussion and the above person is probably blocking me because I contested his claim to closing a discussion without any justification to close it. This block is out of revenge than anything else. To expand, I looked up my IP and this is what it is "75.105.13.148". The only IP blocked even close to mine is "75.104.133.79". Anyone who knows IPs knows that there is a huge difference between the two. Just because they may look similar to someone ignorant of computers does not make them equal. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Possible means nothing. The only "strong indication" is by users who are upset when OWNing a page. There is no proof to the allegations above and where is the proof that there is any connection to my edit history? And disruptions? I have done nothing different than everyone else at the AFDs, which is discussing issues and questioning people's points. AFD is for discussion and the above person is probably blocking me because I contested his claim to closing a discussion without any justification to close it. This block is out of revenge than anything else. To expand, I looked up my IP and this is what it is "75.105.13.148". The only IP blocked even close to mine is "75.104.133.79". Anyone who knows IPs knows that there is a huge difference between the two. Just because they may look similar to someone ignorant of computers does not make them equal. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Possible means nothing. The only "strong indication" is by users who are upset when OWNing a page. There is no proof to the allegations above and where is the proof that there is any connection to my edit history? And disruptions? I have done nothing different than everyone else at the AFDs, which is discussing issues and questioning people's points. AFD is for discussion and the above person is probably blocking me because I contested his claim to closing a discussion without any justification to close it. This block is out of revenge than anything else. To expand, I looked up my IP and this is what it is "75.105.13.148". The only IP blocked even close to mine is "75.104.133.79". Anyone who knows IPs knows that there is a huge difference between the two. Just because they may look similar to someone ignorant of computers does not make them equal. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- No revenge here NobutoraTakeda. You questioned my close and I directed you to WP:DRV... end of story. Anyone who is familiar with me is going to know I always welcome review of my edits and administrative actions. This is about the good chance you are User:SanchiTachi evading an indefinite block and your disruptive commenting/harassment of editors at AFD.--Isotope23 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Evading? Are you stupid? I have Hughes Satalite Internet. I only get on IP. There is no possibility that anyone could even share my IP address. You are just a vindictive jerk who couldn't stand someone challenging you. NobutoraTakeda 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a second... are you asserting that the fact that your IP address (75.105.13.148) being from the same ISP as 75.104.133.79... which was blocked (by me) for being a User:SanchiTachi before you ever started editing here, somehow clears you of the claim of sockpuppetry? If anything that would seem to bolster the suspicion you are the same person.--Isotope23 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, are you stupid? http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?domain=75.104.133.79&cache=off&email=on "NetRange: That one point difference in the second section are WORLDS apart. Have you never read any books on the internet? How did someone even give you admin status without you understanding the basics of internet protocols? Hughs satalite internet is the biggest satalite internet company in the world and operates many of the accounts for other satalite internet companies such as DirectTV. There are 99,999,999 other IP addresses owned under the 75 IP. So that means your possibility of me being that person is 1 in 99,999,999 if you can somehow magically claim that 104 = 105 in Internet Protocols. NobutoraTakeda 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure your characterizations of me will undoubtedly convince the reviewing admin to unblock... yes I fully understand how net ranges work. The fact that you are on the same ISP as User:SanchiTachi is not the reason I blocked you... there is an old saying "if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Comparing your edits to User:SanchiTachi bore that out.--Isotope23 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- They have an old saying about paranoia and seeing everything behind every corner. The fact that everyone who went against Darkson was posted as a possibility of that guy. Comparing your edits to anyone else shows that you are someone who makes lots of grand claims without any evidence to back them up. NobutoraTakeda 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure your characterizations of me will undoubtedly convince the reviewing admin to unblock... yes I fully understand how net ranges work. The fact that you are on the same ISP as User:SanchiTachi is not the reason I blocked you... there is an old saying "if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck". Comparing your edits to User:SanchiTachi bore that out.--Isotope23 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, are you stupid? http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?domain=75.104.133.79&cache=off&email=on "NetRange: That one point difference in the second section are WORLDS apart. Have you never read any books on the internet? How did someone even give you admin status without you understanding the basics of internet protocols? Hughs satalite internet is the biggest satalite internet company in the world and operates many of the accounts for other satalite internet companies such as DirectTV. There are 99,999,999 other IP addresses owned under the 75 IP. So that means your possibility of me being that person is 1 in 99,999,999 if you can somehow magically claim that 104 = 105 in Internet Protocols. NobutoraTakeda 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a second... are you asserting that the fact that your IP address (75.105.13.148) being from the same ISP as 75.104.133.79... which was blocked (by me) for being a User:SanchiTachi before you ever started editing here, somehow clears you of the claim of sockpuppetry? If anything that would seem to bolster the suspicion you are the same person.--Isotope23 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Evading? Are you stupid? I have Hughes Satalite Internet. I only get on IP. There is no possibility that anyone could even share my IP address. You are just a vindictive jerk who couldn't stand someone challenging you. NobutoraTakeda 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- No revenge here NobutoraTakeda. You questioned my close and I directed you to WP:DRV... end of story. Anyone who is familiar with me is going to know I always welcome review of my edits and administrative actions. This is about the good chance you are User:SanchiTachi evading an indefinite block and your disruptive commenting/harassment of editors at AFD.--Isotope23 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone ignorant on what I say, here is some information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Network_Systems http://www.networkworld.com/news/2002/0204specialfocus.html
"Hughes Network Services, the leading provider of VSAT services in North America (see graphic), offers small-business users Directway, a VSAT Internet access service. Starband and Tacyon also sell VSAT Internet access services to individual users. These offerings let a greater variety of businesses, such as real estate agencies and veterinarian offices, use VSAT services, Bull says."
Its the largest satalite company and our IPs aren't even close. NobutoraTakeda 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... both 75.104.133.79 (blocked as SanchiTachi) and 75.105.13.148 (apparently yours) are on the same ISP, however, which does serve as a connection. It is true that 75.104.0.0/14 is a large range, but they are nevertheless on the same range. Add to that a clear intersection of interests (contribs for: 75.105.13.148, 75.104.133.79, SanchiTachi, NobutoraTakeda). It's also more than a bit unusual that a new user would display such familiarity with Wikipedia policies and processes, including AfD -- your first edit as an IP clearly displays familiarity with the project, leaping into a dispute (where, interestingly enough, there were other accusations of sockpuppetry). There are other people on that IP range, yes, but how many of them are fans of Warhammer 40K, familiar with and interested in Wikipedia, knowledgable about these few disputes in particular, and share a peculiar and rather antagonistic argumentative style? There does seem to be a case to be answered, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did not know how to do an AFD, that is why there is Wikipedia help. I also didn't know about a few policies until someone linked me after I asked Haemo about fancruft. I am not a fan of Warhammer 40K. Where did you get that idea? I already showed that I have no idea about it but I do know that its fan fiction and doesn't belong. Please correct the obvious mistakes you have made and you will see that there is no case. I didn't start any "antagonistic argument style", many people started antagonizing me and you can see that above. NobutoraTakeda 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- And before you try to pick on me, look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rules_of_chess it is common practice to question others in the way that I have questioned! It is obvious that there isn't any policy violation or rule breaking, but one admin who is angry that I challenged his closing. NobutoraTakeda 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- And Isotope can claim all he wants, but it isn't coincidence that he blocked me while other people have seen that same "possible". NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
About Blueboy's claim on the Administrators's noticeboard that Istope is too much of a coward and bully to let me defend myself at.
" * Good block--especially since he tripped himself up by claiming he didn't know how to do an AfD, but nearly all of his contribs were to AfDs. Quack, quack. Blueboy96 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And something else ... may want to consider relisting any articles that were deleted as a result of his nominations at WP:DRV, for procedural reasons only. I've already found one ... Blueboy96 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)"
Its called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion "If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion and the guide to deletion may help you understand why an article has been nominated. Once that's done, see how to list pages for deletion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion "How to list pages for deletion
This section describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases.
Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III.
To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:"
Blueboy's comment is stupid. And if its "quack quack" how many Articles for deletion did that Sanchi guy do? Huh? NobutoraTakeda 01:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)