User talk:Itake: Difference between revisions

Help with Translation!?

Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

Albania is also rich in rivers and streams with significant hydroelectric potential. These have been exploited quite effectively, making the country an energy exporter. A number of huge hydroelectric power plants have been built, mainly on the Drin River, and more than half of the country's arable land is irrigated, largely from the artificial reservoirs created upstream of the dams.

--Armour 10:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing

Are you refering to the kd article or to the other one? If you meant the KD article, I just fixed some minor header mistakes that you had made, and on the other article, I added some wikilinks and stub categories. I had no idea that would disturb you. I was just trying to help Wikipedia. (Entheta 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

NP, its just that I got an annoying error when I edited it because someone else had edited it while I was typing. Its no big issue, its done now so you can help me tidy it up if you want Itake 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyde rant #1

That's it, you've pushed it too far this time. Continue violating the civility guidelines and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are strong words from a regular user like the rest of us. Aren't you violating the civility guidelines? --Jason Gastrich 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll see you in the area of the blocked people then, Cyde. Itake 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors note: Cyde has since been made an admin, and not suprising he also continued his quest for vengeance against Jason Gastrich. Itake 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich #1

Hi Itake, I hope you're well. I was reading your dialogue with User:Daycd and I have to say that you were right on the money. He can be a single-minded troll and you exposed him. Saying that LBU is a diploma mill exemplifies his POV and reveals that he probably isn't thinking in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Keep in touch. I'd be happy to know you better, brother.

Sincerely, --Jason Gastrich 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

None of these self-righteous tards have wikipedia's best interest at heart. They want to shape this encyclopedia to fit their own world views, and we shouldn't let them. Itake 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need an objectivity lesson. And Itake needs a civility lesson. David D. (Talk) 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the matter, Daycd? Can't you just feel that "Christian" love? - WarriorScribe 19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm is my second language little boy. Itake 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm your huckleberry. Show me what you've got. - WarriorScribe 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Come and vote your mind

Dear Christian friend,

I saw you on the list of Christian Wikipedians and wanted to let you know about something. The other day, someone nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion! They include a Christian university list of people (not unlike 68 other lists like it)[1], presidents of universities, and authors of many books.

Since that time, people have been voting. Please take this message as a call to vote; not a call to vote a certain way. I respect you and your ability to come, read the entry, and make a wise decision. In other words, I’m not vote stacking or campaigning; simply letting you know something that you’d probably like to know.

By the way, my friend recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ. If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see the site!

Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

God bless you, Wiggins2 07:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyde rant #2

In response to your message here ... this is your final warning. Stop the personal attacks. --Cyde Weys 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here to warn you about edits like this [2], but I see you've already been warned so I'll just reaffirm what Cyde is telling you. Continued personal attacks, even oblique ones, are not acceptable. FeloniousMonk 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No of course not. Personal attacks are only acceptable when directed against other people, right? Its okay to accuse people of multying, using meatpuppets, being POV etc but not to respond to those attacks? Your POV and bias is getting really tiresome. Go away, and go get a life. Itake 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich is well known for using sockpuppets - see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich - and has attempted to swing consensus his way by recruiting people that he thinks will vote how he wants. Stating this isn't a personal attack. POV accusations are perhaps borderline, as you can't prove someone's opinions as has been extensively done with regards to his sockpuppetry and recruiting. Calling people retards, however, definitely violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Malthusian (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that is a personal attack. The sockpuppet thing is still under investigation obviously, which is why it called "suspected". Whether he is doing "meatpuppetry" is also under investiagation. So yes, then it is personal attacks. Its blatantly doing what should not be acceptable, casting accusations and unfounded criticism. You are pushing a campaign to label this user something he's not, you are trying to make something that is under investigation sound like a cleared up matter. The attacks on mine and Gastrich's religion, the small insinuations that are just borderline insults, That is not okay, and when you stop doing that I will stop the personal attacks myself. Until then, go away. Itake 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So you interpret Matthew 5:39 as not applying to you, then? - WarriorScribe 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the bible have to do with sockpuppets? Is there a point in your rants? Itake 04:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't rant. I simply asked you if Matthew 5:39 applies to you. Try again. - WarriorScribe 05:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It applies to everyone. Itake 05:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask that. I asked if it applies to you. Yes or no. - WarriorScribe 05:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dave Horn (WarriorScribe) is a menace to religious people, so don't fall for his nonsense. He's been harrassing Christians on Usenet for awhile. See here for chronicles of his miserable behavior. [3]

You don't owe him an answer. Pray for him. God will be taking care of him for eternity unless he sees the light. --Jason Gastrich 05:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but you do owe me an answer. If nothing else, try to remember that I'm not the only one reading. You'd do well to stay as far from Gastrich as possible. He's an established liar, as we've shown here countless times. By all means, read his stolen-domain-name messages, but be sure to read the rebuttals. Of course, the bit about God taking care of me "for eternity" is the sort of empty threat someone like Gastrich will make. But the fact is that you owe me an answer. Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you or not? You know, Gastrich won't answer that one, either. - WarriorScribe 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, it applies to everyone. I eat debate-happy atheists for breakfast, Dave. This is the internet, Dave. You have no chance of going at people for their religion in the same way you can do IRL. I could just start ignoring you if I wanted, Dave. But lets discuss the empty threats, because I agree with Gastrich there. Of course, it doesn't matter wheter you belive its an empty threat or not, because the empty threat belives in you. Itake 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask that. I asked if it applies to you. Answer the question. Save the speeches for another time. By the way, I'm not an atheist, and having been on the receiving end of boastful commentary such as yours, and having subsequently sent those boasters running home to mommy, I'm not impressed with your debate record, either. So just answer the question. It'll go easier on you. Does it apply to you? Yes or no. What are you afraid of? - WarriorScribe 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I answered your question. Unless you live in another world where the meaning of the word "everyone" is different. If you do, its time to return to the real world. I did not make any speeches, I told you the truth. You can choose to ignore it and boast about your debate record, but it is still of course the truth. Atheist, anti-christian, whatever. It really doesn't interest me which category you place yourself in. So once again, what is the point of your rant? Itake 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked you if it specifically applies to you. Why can't you write "yes" or "no?" Trying to claim that it applies to "everyone" is avoidance. For one thing, it doesn't apply to everyone. Not everyone believes in the Bible. Your attempt to apply it as you have is an attempt to avoid your own specific responsibility to the beliefs to which you claim to ascribe (but which your behavior shows to be a fraud). One more time: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you or not? - WarriorScribe 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You must think that I'm not so bright or something. There is nothing avoiding in my answer, I answered your question already. This is the internet, not your home, so we don't play by your rules Dave. I don't have to shape my answers to suit you. Like I said, wheter you belive in the bible or not doesn't mean anything. Its still there, and the text in it still applies to everyone because when the time comes, everyone will be judged by those standards. Now if you were a priest, an educated theologist, or even christian I might choose to discuss my own religious beliefs with you. But since you're not, I won't. So your opinion on wheter I violate the rules in the bible or not don't really interest me, because you won't be the one doing the judging in the end. Itake 17:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance and irrelevancies noted. One more time: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you or doesn't it? Yes or no. - WarriorScribe 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Spock, you got your answer. Its clear you don't want to discuss anymore when its you thats on the defensive. Itake 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You are seriously deluded. It's a simple enough question. Why can't you answer it directly? "Yes" or "no," does Matthew 5:39 apply to you? - WarriorScribe 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We are now reaching the point where I'm beginning to question your intelligence, and if you are even capable of understanding simple sentences in English. You got your answer, and I won't give you the satisfaction of repeating it. But it is interesting how defensive you get whenever this conversation gets to being about you instead. Perhaps you've got something you'd like to share with us? Itake 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mine is hardly a defensive position. I am asking a simple question, and you are avoiding it. You are free to question my intelligence or anything else that you so desire, but without something to back it up, it's just noise. I asked you a very simple question, and I suspect that you know exactly why that question was so specific. That is why you're avoiding it. Here's the chance to redeem yourself a bit and see if you can truly take Christian responsibility: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you? Yes or no. - WarriorScribe 19:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Redempetion does not come from your hands, Dave. And I've got something to back my question up, you can't read. If you could read, you would have seen the numerous entries where I already stated my answer. Since you can't understand that, I have to assume you are lacking brains somewhere. Itake 19:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance and speech-making noted, again. Let's recall that this is about your statement that, as long (what you perceive as) personal attacks continue, you will continue to engage in personal attack. I ask again: Does Matthew 5:39 apply to you? I've got all the time that will be needed. - WarriorScribe 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you have alot of free time is noted, but I won't speculate into what might be the cause of that. Matthew 5:39 applies to everyone. Itake 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Veiled and rather pathetic attempt at an insult noted. Does Matt. 5:39 apply to you? - WarriorScribe 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you talk like that IRL, it might be a reason as to why you have so much time to dedicate to pointless internet squabbles. There can only be one Spock, Dave. I don't have that time, however. Itake 20:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have plenty of time to avoid the question, when a simple "yes" or "no" would have taken care of it hours ago. Does Matt. 5:39 apply to you? - WarriorScribe 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He already answered your question. You know what the word "everyone" means, right? --Jason Gastrich 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I request this conversation be aborted, per WP:CIV. By posting that comment, I am supporting neither side of the debate. Sycthos^Talk 21:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - WarriorScribe 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. Itake 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse #1

You have been temporarily blocked for 24 hours from editing for violating WP:NPA despite previous warnings. FeloniousMonk 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

We'l see about that. Itake 04:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors note: At the time I got a response from the wiki mailing list thingy on FeloniousMonk's abuse of his admin powers, my temp ban had already expired. Its still 1-0 to me however. Itake 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde rant #3

Stop blanking Cyde's warnings on the Gastrich AfDs. They are perfectly valid. If you disagree, talk to him or take it to the talk page of the AfDs, don't interfere with his comments. --Malthusian (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you show me exactly where the concensus on that was reached? Where did everyone agree that they were perfectly valid? Did the discussion about the "suspicions" end, and did everyone agree that it was infact a fact? I didn't think so. Itake 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is a consensus needed? It is a statement of fact. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking hard and I see no-one disputing that Wiggins2 is a sockpuppet, apart from Jason Gastrich's incredibly weak claim that Wiggins is just a friend. Oh, and you, of course. His contributions consist entirely of vote recruiting (in Gastrich's initimable style) and edit warring over The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, promoting Gastrich's book. He is Gastrich. --Malthusian (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm, still my second language. Point proven. Itake 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you used a strange counter example when you say "This AfD processed as been disrupted by atheist users". It is documented that Gastrich e-mailed people with inclusionist and christian info boxes on their user page. Such a warning up front is warrented when such an AfD is manipulated in this way. There was no mention of any specific users in the text. All it said was "soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep". In that context "others" could, and does, imply anyone. Yet, in your edit summary you imply that atheists would vote delete. Did you know there are atheists who have voted keep? There are also inclusionists that have voted delete. Your argument is not valid and the warning is perfectly reasonable. For your information I did not put the warning up. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. There is no concensus that the AfD was "manipulated" by Gastrich's emails. There's still a discussion on that aswell, because enlightening users about interesting disputes isn't manipulation. Stop pretending like these things are solid facts. My "argument" is an example of what would also be a POV saturated intro. My argument against the current intro is just that, its POV saturated. The first intro is perfectly okay, its an official wikipedia policy and it warns the user that this topic has some problems. The other however, is nothing but pure POV bias. Itake 00:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich RfC

Also you may be interested that there is an RfC against Gastrich. I think your opinion should be heard. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It will. Itake 00:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Itake, if you can show me where I've violated any Wikipedia policy against you or Jason Gastrich then I'll apologize. I really don't think I have. I don't think I've attacked your religion either. Durova 04:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I believe you're confusing Wikipedia:Consensus with wikt:consensus. In AfD, a supermajority is generally considered consensus. With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination), out of all the participants, 53 people felt that the article did not deserve to exist (42 delete + 11 merge), as compared to 18 keeps (or 54–25 if all the votes I discounted are included, which is greater than a 2:1 ratio). I believe that's a pretty fair consensus. And honestly, this article was such an obvious merge candidate I don't see what the fuss is all about. By moving it into the Louisiana Baptist University article, the content is still available for anyone to see. With all due respect, you're making mountains out of molehills here. howcheng {chat} 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you moved the contents of the page to the Louisiana Baptist University article. If the content is still there, merged, its okay. Itake 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Easier said than done since Louisiana Baptist University is currently locked. Although it could be put on the talk page. David D. (Talk) 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it, because the consensus was to delete, but I can undelete the content for you or someone else to do the merge. howcheng {chat} 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this will be appreciated. If you can paste it into the Talk:Louisiana Baptist University (or directly into the page, since you're an admin), this will be good. --207.200.116.202 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Angående FeloniousMonk

Se upp för den här personen. Jag, och andra som mig, har också haft problem med honom. Läs den här diskussionen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Turkmen

Jag har också varit blockerad av honom. Jag vill inte säga vad jag egentligen tycker om honom, för om han får veta det, blir det 24h igen. Ha det. --Candide, or Optimism 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Investigating your block

I understand you have been blocked and am creating these links to look into the situation. I am not implying that you are a vandal, just using a piece of coding. Itake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fred Bauder 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems your email to the list was delayed and your block is ancient history. I hope you are doing OK now and avoiding personal attacks and incivility. Fred Bauder 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jzg rant #1

Hey Itake, I see that you're vocal about the poor behavior of certain admins. Add User:JzG to your list. He keeps deleting all kinds of great, informative information about LBU. He has no reason at all, except he says so. And he has banned people for disagreeing with them and accused many of being sockpuppets without any evidence. It's truly wretched behavior. --Turkmen 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh he's on my list alright. Itake 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Gastrich, if Guy didn't have evidence before he certainly has now with that brilliantly subtle post. Excuse us Itake, just passing through. --Malthusian (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Itake, the nonsense continues. Now User:JzG won't respond on the talk page, but hijacks the LBU entry, reverting all contributions, saying consensus must be reached. Consensus has been reached, at least on expanding the notable alumni to match other university entries. This guy is outta control. --Turkmen 10:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(Turkmen is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich RfC

Itake, there is a proposal for resolution active at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. As the sole defender of Gastrich (a brave move for which I salute you, even if I do think you are being naive - I've been there myself with Bonaparte) you may wish to contribute. Consensus appears to be that he should stop using sockpuppets, play nicely and try to get along. An immediate and permanent block was mooted by some admins in other discussions, but I don't think that's right: he does have some history of good-faith edits to counterbalance the vanity and the snow-job on LBU. The proposed resolution will allow him to continue contributing as long as Mr. Ego takes a back seat. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jsmorse47 rant #1

Thanks for writing. I did read the discussion pages on those articles, but I disagree that it should be off site. You may want the only source of this list to be on your website, but most others would disagree. I saw a few people saying, there should be an independent list, so make one. I did.

I'm going to restore the sites that I put up there originally. I'm not sure which are dead, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered. THe other two are geopolitical simulations based on the first sentence of the wikipedia article on that subject, "A true Geo-Political web-based simulator is a nation-simulation game in which players take the roles of leaders of nations or organizations"

Thanks for your interest in my post. I look forward to your active constructive work on making the list better.Joe 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Response given on the list's talkpage. Itake 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

oh really?

Conservata veritate

ya rly. Itake 03:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto rant #1

Hello, I am curious if anyone contacted you asking you to particpate in the AfD of the TRACS schools? Arbusto 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I'm curious what the most efficient way to get you off my talk page would be. In short, I'm not interested. I've already been in a dispute similar to this one, with the attempt by a cabal of wikipedia editors who used everything from abusing mod powers to scare tactics to remove the List of Louisiana Baptist University People article. I don't have the time nor the dedication to enter another AfD dispute again. I'm tired of you people and your ways, and in time people will no doubt know wikipedia for what it really is. Itake 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes or no? Arbusto 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now why would I give you the satisfaction of answering a question? Itake 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes or no? Arbusto 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your vocabulary is limited? Either way, I'm not doing ANYTHING to even remotely help any of you people. Itake 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If the answer is no, it helps Gastrich. JoshuaZ 20:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is already banned, no? Itake 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Only for a year, but the ban resets with every new violation, so if you were not contacted by Jason, and you care for him at all you should tell us that. JoshuaZ

Is it a violation to contact people and ask them to vote in an AfD? Itake 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, deciding whether a specific AfD contact constituted a violation is up to the Arb Com. However, given Jason's prior behavior they are most likely going to lean towards presuming that the contact was unacceptable. The easiest way for you to help Jason is to cooperate with the Arb Com and present any mitigating evidence you have concerning his contact. JoshuaZ 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Commitee? Ha...hahahahaha. Itake 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you find that funny why? JoshuaZ 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is run by the devil. David D. (Talk) 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

'tis true. Itake 21:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I note Itake that you didn't contradict me what I said above that basically assumed his contacting you. It seems pretty clear that he did contact you. At this point, it will be easier on you and for your future credibility if you just admit it. JoshuaZ 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof rests on the accusor(sp?). Which means you, which means I do not have to respond to every single one of your silly comments to justify myself. Itake 21:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true, you don't have to respond. The above was a recommendation. I said it will be "easier on you and for your future credibility." The point is pretty serious, you will be on better terms with all concerned if you gave a straight answer to whether or not Jason has contacted you. JoshuaZ 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But I don't want to be on better terms with any of you. I'm not in it for the popularity contest, I'm in it for justice. Justice, freedom and democracy! Itake 22:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Justice for whom and for what and what does that have to do with anything at all? And by the way, are you aware how much what you said above sounds like something out of a comic book? Look on that user talk page! Its a sockpuppet, its a meatpuppet, no its Captain Itake! He fights "for justice. Justice, freedom and democracy!" Seriously, calm down and lighten up. This is only Wikipedia. And please don't lose sight of what Wikipedia is about, building an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 22:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That was what I thought when I first came here too. What a wonderful idea, an encyclopedia open for everyone! Then I started editing, got into my first NPOV conflict, and from thereone I rapidly lost my faith in the site. Now I know the site is about letting people who can't get their bums of their comp chairs have somewhere where they can play, feel mighty, and attack other editors as a way of compromising for a hard highschool life getting beaten up by a bully. Sad. Itake 22:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia is just that, why do you still come here? Don't have something better to do with your time? Maybe you can go work at the local soup kitchen. There probably fewer NPOV conflicts there. JoshuaZ 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a local soup kitchen. And if we did, I doubt it would be open at this time a night. Eitherway, I stay because there are a select few articles I've promised to vigilantly guard against vandalism and POV edits. Itake 22:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Could Itake translate "in time people will no doubt know wikipedia for what it really is" for the rest of us? What is wikipedia for? Arbusto 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I could not translate that for you. Itake 21:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto rant #2

So an adminstrator warns you about your incivility and you change the title without any mention of it in the edit summary box. I'm sure it was an accident[4]. Arbusto 21:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Another accident involving blocking made minutes later. Arbusto 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a point? If so, are you getting to it anytime soon? Itake 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

More[5]. Arbusto 21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing someone's comments that include comments posted in titles is modifying someone else's edits that they signed their user name to.[6] That is vandalism. Stop. Arbusto

Yes, whenever you give credible evidence that you are infact not ranting, I will be sure to change the title. Until then, I'd like my talk page organised thank you. Itake 21:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jsmorse47

Knock off the personal attacks. While Jsmorse47's use of his user page to attack you is not acceptable, this is slightly disingenuous considering you added the delete tag, and your use of the word 'retarded' as an insult is unnecessary. I've removed both your personal attacks from the userpage and will warn Jsmorse as well. If you've got some off-site problem with this editor I would ask you to keep it off-site. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know the editor. He appeared out of nowhere, did his rant, and then left. Not to mention that was retarded, if he would have checked the logs he would have seen that I did not delete his page. Itake 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say you did. He said you got it deleted, which was correct as you added the {{delete}} tag. Which, by the way, you were correct in doing as it was a collection of external links and speediable under CSD A3, but you could have pointed that out instead of calling him retarded. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got little patience with people who call me silly things, so thats why I replied using a fitting word. Either way, I thought that adding the delete tag would get editors to come to the talk page and discuss the removal. Not just remove it right away. Itake 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lay off Arbustoo

Arbustoo is doing good and necessary work, but is probably a bit too involved to necessarily see the bigger picture in every case. He has been attacked by a lot of socks and other puppets. I support his editing work, to a very large extent, but I have asked him and I will ask you to take a deep breath and remain civil. Good articles are created by people of varing points of view working together and respecting each other's opinions and knowledge while disagreeing. So please stick to the subject and avoid being sucked into incivility. OK? Just zis Guy you know? 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'l try. Itake 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[7] Arbusto 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Arbusto, replying to an attack on my own person does not constitute "laying on" you. Itake 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[8] Arbusto 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Arbusto, replying to an attack on my own person does not constitute "laying on" you. Itake 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Ashibaka tock 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't ever change, Itake. In my opinion, JzG and Arbustoo could care less about you, what you stand for, or the even-handed truth. How a godless infidel like Arbustoo could deceive even the liberal believer called Guy into believing that he actually has Wiki's best interests in mind and that he isn't vehemently against Christianity is surely satanic. --No Jobs 00:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)