Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jahiegel (talk | contribs) at 04:00, 7 February 2006 (Pedophilia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to add something to someone else's talk page!

Seldomly Asked Questions

Q. You have removed a boilerplate message from some article, but I think it belongs there. Can I put it back?

A. Yes, no problem.

Q. Can I leave you barnstars?

A. Yes! I love barnstars!

Subpages

Misc. nonsense not linked to on my User page:

• /History 2004
• /History2 Jan-Aug 2005
• /History3 Aug-Dec 2005
• User:Ashibaka/Portal
• User:Ashibaka/RFB nomination records
• User:Ashibaka/maintenance
• User:Ashibaka/WikiProject Rectangular Corners
• User:Ashibaka/Food for thought
• User:Ashibaka/welcome
• User:Ashibaka/cologneblue.css Make Cologne Blue even sweeter.

Lir

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

You heard it from her first.

Yelyos

Just posting to say that I've always been a fan of your writings, ever since reading that post on II that led to the Psychic Test. (Was going to get around to this earlier, but was too afraid of PM feature on II. Don't ask.)

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that there are people out there who get all giddy whenever they notice "Ashibaka" (or "Ashitaka", but only in the case of the aforementioned Ashibaka ... on second thought, the movie is pretty gidd-inducing* itself.

All right, enough rambling from me. Just happy to see a familiar face in this really really big crowd.

* No, this isn't a word, but it should be. I mean, it's gidd! What sane person wouldn't want it as a word?

Yelyos 06:56, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hello! This is a fine Internet, isn't it? I guess I ought to get around to updating my website-- after becoming a goon it's remained stagnant. Anyway, it's great to know that I actually have a fan of the petty, teenager-y things I write, considering I know I have many people who dislike me for it. So, thanks! :) --Ashi

Numeral systems template

Hey Ashibaka. Refering to your using "Hindu-Arabic family" on the numeral systems template, you might like to look at an extensive discussion somewhere on the archives of the Hindu-Arabic numerals talk page about the distinction between a numeral system and numerals. A numeral system is not the symbols used to express it. Since normally there is a unique set of symbols associated with a numeral system (e.g. Roman numerals with Roman numeral system), the template uses just "Roman" and the article describes both the numerals (i.e., the symbols I, V ,M C ,etc) as well as the system (i.e., how to decode something like MCXVII.) This becomes a bit tricky with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system since its widespread use has given rise to many symbol sets in different parts of the world. You can call these symbol sets as belonging to the "Hindu-Arabic family" if you want. Since this template is about "numeral systems" not "numeral symbol sets", I would preferably stick with just "Hindu-Arabic." Regards. deeptrivia (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just saying "Hindu-Arabic" in that template is a little confusing, because it refers to the system as opposed to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" (the current subtitle of Arabic numerals). I just gave it a qualifier off the top of my head in order to disambiguate the word-- thanks for clearing me up. Ashibaka tock 03:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Ashibaka! Great work!! deeptrivia (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the welcome!Poiuyt098@hotmail.com 05:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ducks on the pond

Heh. Happy ducks in a pram day to you, too! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Persondata

I was not able to reproduce the problem you had with the persondata template and the cologne blue skin. If you could provide me with a bit more information perhaps I can get to the bottom of it. Are you still seeing the template (I reverted the template back for testing purposes)? What browser and version are you using? Do you know of anything in your user stylesheet that might be causing a conflict with the metadata css? Kaldari 20:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I got this error with Firefox 1.0. However, it seems to have fixed itself now-- maybe it was a caching bug. Ashibaka tock 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AfD

It wasn't orphaned? Can you tell me what was wrong with it? I couldn't find it anywhere, and it looked like the nominator had filled out subst:afd but not subst:afd2 or subst:afd3, and it took me a few minutes to figure out and fix. bikeable (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your cache was old. It is listed twice on today's AfD page when I last checked :) Ashibaka tock 04:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

re: WP:NOT

I just reverted the edit you made to WP:NOT where you removed the "weird template". I have my own reservations about the whole "policy in a nutshell" idea and have argued against it on the template's Talk page. I believe that the first paragraph ought to be the synopsis of the entire policy page. (Actually, I think it might have been one of the predecessor versions, but that's not really important.) Several people disagree and are experimenting with this format where they attempt to summarize the entire policy in a single phrase or sentence.

Anyway, I reverted your edit because I think that if the template should go, the "one-liner" should go too. If the one-liner stays, the template wrapper should also stay. I wouldn't disagree if you took out the whole thing but orphaning the one-liner without that template wrapper seemed more confusing than helpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct that the one-liner has existed for a longer time on this page than this experiment with the "policy in a nutshell". I lost track of the edit history somehow. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry

hey, sorry for messing up your post over @ talk:lolicon when I archived... Don't know what you intended so I'll leave to field to you to fix etc. :) Mikkerpikker 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts don't usually bugger up the thing that's already been added, it's your post that you'll need to add back in from the box on the bottom. When using talk pages, adding section headers usually clears these conflicts up. Ashibaka tock 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the US Legal status of Lolicon

While I still contend that a clear warning must be placed, I will submit to your judgment. At least, please, discuss this with someone else. Deleteme 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure anyone else who looks at the Talk page and has a different opinion will want to bring it up. Ashibaka tock 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed policy in a nutshell template from Misplaced Pages:Banning policy

I was just wondering if you had a specific reason for removing the template and replacing it with text. You didn't leave an edit summary. Stevage 18:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I felt that a "policy in a nutshell" was not a good idea for the Banning Policy article, just like it isn't a good idea at WP:NOT. Ashibaka tock 19:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hikikomori

Hi. I agree, i only added it because one user was using ONLY this spelling. I actually prefer your version.I woudl keep Hikokimori as a redirect though. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Trollish Rubbish"

It was neither trollish nor rubbish, it was a point of fact. WP:AGF. Do not add flames to my talk page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.161.140 (talk • contribs)

Uh, adding "Misplaced Pages sucks" to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Day is trolling. Ashibaka tock 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well now, I didn't add "Misplaced Pages sucks", just the cold hard truth. What you are doing however is trolling and is not appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.161.140 (talk • contribs)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.161.140 (talk • contribs) Template:Linkimage Here is a barnstar in recognition for your work in making Misplaced Pages into Dickipedia. Lets here it for your long hard work at trolling and being a dick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeJoeBeans (talk • contribs)

... Ashibaka tock 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

translation request

did some work on your request of "卵かけご飯” from japanese: tamago kake gohan. just letting you know. Tmkain 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is excellent! :) Ashibaka tock 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Read this before deleting

Notice my pov notice was left that is a high traffic page as well, your the only one who dosent agree there is clear bias against it all the wikipedia fanboys and girls have been adding to it. Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial Mike 10:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And you're the only one who agrees to that, as far as I can tell. Ashibaka tock 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparenty not seeing as your the only one who even thought about deleting it. Mike 02:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Ashibaka tock 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics and the English Language

I bumped across your edit here, which I thought suitably addressed the irony in a hilarious way , so I've decided to give you a barnstar. A bit late, but still!

Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's a real Barnstar! Thanks, mate, I really appreciate it. Ashibaka tock 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:2ch-aa.png

I see that you've tagged image:2ch-aa.png with Template:PD-ineligible (uncopyrightable because "it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship"). I assume this refers to the fact that it is made up of Shift-JIS characters that are in themselves common property? If so, I don't think this alone is enough to assume it's public domain. It's comparable to the idea that all printed music would be public domain since individual notes cannot be copyrighted, or that all digital images would be public domain since individual coloured pixels cannot be copyrighted. Are there other reasons to believe that this image is free of copyright? EldKatt (Talk) 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to image:2ch_Shift_JIS_art.png. EldKatt (Talk) 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no strict evidence. The first image is a common SJIS image macro, which uses common SJIS characters Monar and Onigiri, so I simply decided that it contains no copyrightable content. The original creator obviously made it for widespread use-- 2channel's SJIS art is frequently used on billboards, anime, variety shows, etc. in Japan without attribution. I know this is rather unorthodox reasoning but marking it as fair use is even sillier, IMHO.

The second is an SJIS rendering of someone else's photo, and I suppose it should be web-screenshot rather than PD. I'll find one to replace it. Ashibaka tock 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

re:main talk page

I think I'd rather bring this here than continue it there, I talked to nohat about the image and he's probably aware of his mistake (jawiki brought it to his attention a little while ago) but he doesn't really need to admit it in his position; it would simply be too big a task to fix it and so nobody is going to bother at least until the logo changes again.

That being said, I don't like to lose an argument (sorry) and I still think I'm right, so I stand by my first statement that it's a mistaken entry using the characters ク and ィ. I'm not sure what your Japanese level is (you seem to have some role in translation, though I'm not sure about that). Originally the nohat version of the logo used the character ヰ, which is kind of funny, I thought, but almost as wrong as クィ. At the time when the logo was created, the Japanese wiki was still quite small and the vote wasn't properly attended so it kind of slipped through for a few months. I don't want to generalize but I'd say it's a little bit of a Japanese characteristic not to worry too much about 'foreigner' mistakes like this.   freshgavin TALK    12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

We should have used ヰ in the romanization, that would have fun :) But it does look like he made up his own ligature by writing wa+i, and then stretched it out vertically. Maybe you're right; it's wrong either way. Ashibaka tock 16:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly said, ヰ would have made more sense, going along with nohats claim that they are a collection of random international characters. You'd be much more likely to get ヰ randomly than クィ! Anyways, I would like to create a proposal to create a new logo in general (now that the logo is getting official attention from the likes of the New York Times) just so that the framework is up, and I know there's a lot of people there who want it changed; it's way overdue now. There's no reason to make a new image for each language either, the text doesn't even overlap the image! I'm not sure what the guys upstairs would think about that though ...   freshgavin TALK    02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I like this logo. It's professional and recognizable. But feel free to ask on the Village Pump. Ashibaka tock 02:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is recognizable, and rather professional, but it's the flaws that bug me. The white line surrounding the sphere due to anti-aliasing; the odd random choice of 'international' characters, though the English W is clearly meant to represent the word Misplaced Pages. The huge effort it takes to translate the logo into every language (it's only going to get worse if it continues like this). I think professionality of a logo means that there is no room for criticism. Take the google logo. People can say they like it or don't like it, but there's are very few technical details that you can pick up on, because it's so simple. I guess you could argue about color, but that's more aesthetic than technical.

I'm a big fan of the CPL logo, which is clean and simple, and also scalable and can be implemented into any kind of design, from 2 meter long posters even to a simple ASCII style character. I think with wikipedia getting as big as it is, serious thought has to be put into the publicity aspect of the wiki logo. Anyways, yeah I'll eventually take it up somewhere else.   freshgavin TALK    07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, Ashibaka, for your support in my RfA. If you ever need for anything, please contact me. I am pleased that you found my answers encouraging. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ashibaka tock 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo

Yes, Jimbo's opinion is very interesting, as interesting as any other wikipedians opinion. And since I think WPs official policies are important the picture should be showed (or replaced with a picture that is more accepted by the average american puritanist wikipedian). The picture is not illegal. 81.216.236.207 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Who says Jimbo's opinions overrule official policies? Even if that is what Jimbo himself thinks, I am not going to accept that one man is going to impose his moralist, non-NPOV views on WP. And NPOV is in fact non-negociable. If Jimbo don't like it, then I suggest that he shut down WP (which he of course won't do).

R4000

thx for the help man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4000 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome! Ashibaka tock 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

VeryVerily

Thank you. VeryVerily 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD Thanks

AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD

• LOVE IT!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattersonc (talk • contribs)
  • I'm glad to know! Ashibaka tock 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Election talks

A discussion has begun on how to handle the official election for replacing the Main Page. To make sure it is set up sensibly, and according to participants' consensus, your input is needed. --Go for it! 09:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Bring your boots

Uncle Jimbo wants YOU. Join WP:BC CQ 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, I don't actually use IRC. I hung out in #wikipedia to see the fuss, but generally I avoid it and I would have to use two different nicks at once on Freenode anyway. Ashibaka tock 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Darn!

I was just closing that Texas town one, the first AfD debate I ever would have closed (I'm not an admin and was following WP:IAR), and when I hit the save button it's an edit conflict because you beat me to it! CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 22:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And I was just checking my Contributions list... sorry, I'll let you close your own speedy-keep AfDs next time. ;) Ashibaka tock 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Ashibaka! --a.n.o.n.y.m 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay hooray! Ashibaka tock 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. And regarding the length of my support, I have to admit that almost two lines of it was "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist". --Deathphoenix 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

congrats from me, too. Have fun with your administrator's superpowers! Grutness...wha? 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to everyone: If I didn't leave you a personal note, it's because I couldn't think of anything personal to say and I don't like spamming people who have just been nice to me. It's a conundrum! If you are feeling down and left out I will draw you a picture. Ashibaka tock 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was about to demand a picture, but then I saw Wikipe-tan at the top of this page and now I'm already satisfied :D -- grm_wnr Esc 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, may you be a great mover and shaker (latter part is optional!). --Gurubrahma 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Move notice at Talk:Lost

Hey, Ashibaka. (Would that be a relative of Ashitaka from Princess Mononoke?)

I noticed that you removed the move notice from Talk:Lost. Did you do that thinking it was left over from the previous move request back in September? Because there's a new move request up at WP:RM, and I think that the notice is supposed to be up while the request is active. I hope I haven't got the wrong end of the stick, but I think I'm going to put it back. But I wanted to let you know that I wasn't edit warring with you, and if there's some reason the template shouldn't be there please let me know. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a misspelling of Ashitaka because Yahoo sees a bad word in there. Sorry about that, I was going through a bunch of old requested moves and I didn't notice that one was actually going for a second time. I'll check in the future. :) Ashibaka tock 02:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dante26

Hey Ashibaka. I noticed a few days ago you did some cleaning up after Dante26, believing that a lot of his edits of Italianised names and articles were hoaxes. Well, it seems that the ones that arent hoaxes are copyvios. I've warned him about 6 articles, 3 were speedied, the rest are in the backlog. Anyway, three days after I told him they were copyvios, he went back to Joe Spinell and added back in the exact same copyvio text that he has obviously copy and pasted from IMDb. He so obviously lifts text from IMDb that he doesn't even bother removing IMDb's elipses from the filmographys. There's also an article I nominated for db-bio because, if you believe the article, there is no assertion of notability (he claims the actor only had two film credits and the rest belong to another actor of the same name. I googled for any references that supported this, and the claim that the actor had died 20 years ago, but could find absolutely nothing). As far as I can tell, not one shred of it was verifiable. But Tim Pope felt the article had some merit and moved it to AFD. Personally, I believe it is either a bio which makes no asserion of notability, a hoax or totally unverifiable. So I was wondering if you could please take a look at what is going on with him, it is starting to get really tedious cleaning up his copyvios and insertions of unverifiable and unsourced Italianised names and information. He also appears to be doing this as AOL anons (User: 64.12.116.7, User:64.12.116.198 for instance) as there are anons inserting the same type of edits and one has even advised others to copy and paste bios from IMDb . There's also the issue of Italianised names, he inserted into Michael P. Moran the assertion that his real name is "Moranco". I removed it and rewrote the entire article. I googled for all versions of the name Michael Peter Moranco and got zero hits. An anon then came along and added back in the "Moranco," which I removed, asking for sources to be cited, then today another anon has resinserted the name change. Sorry, to bring this to you, but I figured you were the best person since you are already aware of him. Thanks. :) Sarah Ewart 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. And the archive links are broken because I changed my username and haven't moved the pages over yet. Thanks, though. :) Sarah Ewart 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Our friend is back as User:Opy67, posting copyvios and has restarted the Fulco Scorvella hoax you nominated for deletion. *sigh* Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry you've been getting complaints. I noticed the other day he was AOL, or at least the anon IPs I thought were him were on AOL. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit Question on Azumanga Daioh

One of the problems with the editing process is that it's nearly impossible to cite sepcifically what you deleted without compounding the problem. I noticed this on your edit of the Azumanga Daioh article -- it took me a while to figure out which reference you cut. For the record, the "Mi" conversation is there, in the scene in which Tomo and Osaka are trying to figure out which year of the Chinese Zodiac it is. Whether it's a Chobits reference is questionable, but it is there. So it's not a problem with the edit -- just that it took a while for me to figure out what it was.Michael Hopcroft 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

By clicking the "diff" link you can see exactly what I took out at the top.

I wrote "patently false" because the Chinese Zodiac skit is about the Chinese zodiac and any comparisons to Chobits originate in the heads of American viewers. Basically it's original research. Ashibaka tock 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

Wikipe-tan fills my heart with Moé~ Thatdog 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon protection

Well, no - that's not really what I meant. It's not that I object lolicon being "frozen" at "The Wrong Version" it is that I didn't think protection was really that necessary. Given that everyone else seems to think it is I'm prob wrong about that, so I don't mind it being protected for now. (not sure we're EVER going to resolve this... in fact, I've promised myself not the visit the lolicon or talk:lolicon pages for a couple of weeks. Let's see whether that lasts!!!) Mikkerpikker ... 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia

Naming conflict policy clearly states that "If the term "Cabindan" (i.e. RoM) is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised". The deleted footnotes brought this article to compliance with the policy. Please explain why meeting the requirements of the Naming Conflict Policy is grounds for locking the page. Regards, Sysin 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I locked it because of an edit war, not because of non-compliance with any policy. Ashibaka tock 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, now it is locked in a state of non-compliance. Sysin 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version Ashibaka tock 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Shii/History5, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Misplaced Pages may persuade you to reconsider your position from neutral. All the best, Proto t c 10:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks!

Please

Remember to add pages you protect to the protected pages list. Thanks. --Woohookitty 09:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry! Ashibaka tock 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

::Puke::

AOL and dante

User_talk:Dante26#Blocked--205.188.116.197 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dante26

My name is Dante26

you have blocked me for "vandalism".

Every article I have put on your website is 100% true.

Some of it is copyright violations and some of it is a hoax. You never cited sources for your "Newt Pips" article and it is patently ridiculous. Ashibaka tock 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

i did not know that giving a person's birth name, (Joe Spinell=Joseph J. Spagnuolo) was a copyright violation. It is simply reporting facts. the newt pips article is 100 percent true. It is veraviable if you search for newt pips in realtion to the hardy boys books.

Buondelmonte

My good friend Buondelmonte (a distinguished opera scholar who is new to Misplaced Pages) has apparently been blocked by you from writing to Giulia Grisi. It seems that this is because of some problem connected to Dante26.

Can you let us know what is happening and if possible reverse the action?

Buondelmonte is a bona fide member of the Opera Project see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Opera.

Kleinzach 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I will leave a message on her talk page. Ashibaka tock 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Process is not as important as complete idiocy

The template has been deleted by Jimbo as utterly unacceptable (as I would have thought was obvious). Please do not recreate it again, using whatever excuse to do so. Putting a template on TFD does not mean we are obligated to keep it a week - David Gerard 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Ashibaka tock 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your addition to Mohammad cartoon controversy

Hi. The headline you posted under was intentionally left blank. Everything you wrote has been dealt with in length in the aricle that is referenced fron the link. The article has been split last friday to shorten it and make editing easier. It will probably be merged back at some point. Please reconsider your addition. Azate 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New Userbox

Given your viewpoint expressed on WP:TFD, I thought you might like the userbox I just created, Template:User process. Just a heads-up. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have userboxes anymore because of the drama, but if I did I would put that at User:Ashibaka/Userpage Kudzu posthaste. Ashibaka tock 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Ashibaka. You are also doing great work for the wikipedia. I've been following the userbox problem a little but don't get discouraged if things don't work out there. :) Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Desysopping

Jimbo Wales has temporarily desysopped several administrators involved in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, yourself included, until such time as the Arbitration Committee can sort the matter out. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Desysoppings Raul654 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yuck. Ashibaka tock 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Don't wheel war"

I find it ironic that you used this as an edit summary after undoing the actions of two different administrators—to me, that certainly looks like you were the instigator of the wheel war. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be linking to a rather random diff link. I did get involved in some wheel wars yesterday because admins were nastily trying to prevent people from seeing what they were voting on in TfD discussions. Ashibaka tock 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read your statement relating to this arbitration, and while I understand the first part the second part makes no sense whatsoever. I understand it relates to Fresh Prince of Bel Air but having never seen it, I am unable to work out if your words mean smoething relating to the case or are just complete gibberish. I'm not an arbitrator, so it doesn't matter that much that I don't understand it. However you might want to consider adding an explanation so any arbitrators who are as clueless as me regarding American television can understand what you are trying to say. Thryduulf 14:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll let Ashibaka explain, but all I'll say is that it was hilarious. =) Easily the best arbitration statement ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand by every word of my statement. Ashibaka tock 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, let's not be too obtuse. I ended my statement with nonsense because (1) I felt everyone needed a reminder that ArbCom is not a moot court (especially on a topic so irrelevant to the encyclopedia), and (2) I didn't have an insightful conclusion or anything to say after that. Later I added an addendum in case it was unclear to anyone. Ashibaka tock 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dante26

I've indef. blocked him for recreating the hoaxes. User:Zoe| 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Ashibaka tock 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia

You are entirely correct that one cannot "engage in pedophilia". Inasmuch as the term has been blanketly—and incorrectly—applied across several discussions in view of the Carnildo blocks, I used the term in both the proper and improper senses, viz., as applying to "the love of children" (see, e.g., my "states of being" reference to Robinson v. California) and as applying to the performance of sex acts with a child (which our wiktionary terms, inter al., "child molestation", with which term I might quibble, if not legally then surely descriptively, at least as applied to situations in which de jure consent is given). While certainly I recognized the distinction, I suppose I chose to overlook it in the interest of best following the previous discussions; surely when bans were issued for one's having defined himself as a "pedophile", the term was understood to reference actions rather than thoughts or feelings; thus even as Carnildo explained he thought blocking self-described "pedophiles" to be improper, in view of their not having acted untowardly, he was (at least as far as I can gather) referencing their not having acted poorly on Misplaced Pages but not their not having acted criminally externally (even had they acted criminally off Misplaced Pages, absent conduct on which others would look down, they would nevertheless, were they banned, have been persecuted simply for their respective states of being, in this case convicted criminals ). Even as I think the blocks and bans issued by those whom Carnildo then blocked and banned to have been altogether inappropriate, I don't think they would have been issued had those issuing them apprehended in one's describing him/herself as a pedophile simply that he/she wished to communicate his/her love for a child. Even as society-and, I suppose, Wikipedians writ large-seems to frown on adult-minor sexual contact, surely there is considerably less stigma attached to one's thinking of engaging in such conduct, and, even, I suppose, of one's expressing a desire so to engage. All of which, I guess, is to say that you are correct to criticize my less-than-accurate word choice, but to say that whilst I recognize the dichotomy of which you wrote and whilst perhaps I ought to have noted such understanding in my other posts, I chose the term I thought best fit the discussion; surely that does not diminish, though, the accuracy of your comment, and, indeed, its relevance, as perhaps it will cause those admins with whom Carnildo has properly taken issue to rethink their views apropos of pedophilia, at least as defined in the dictionary. Then again, as a userbox on my page says, I'm a descriptivist, so, what do I know? Cordially, Joe 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)