User talk:Nandesuka: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:12, 17 June 2006

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Welcome

Please leave me a message below, if you're so inclined. Nandesuka 20:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The soapbox comment was unnecessary. (re: Vulva discussion) Artofthehidden 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not upset about my edit on your User page. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to your note on Vandalism. I only noticed you because you edited my user page to fix the User box. Have a great day! MamaGeek Joy 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mutilation and so on

As it seems the concerned edtiors of the various articles Mutilation and Circumcision are unable to come to a consensus perhaps a request for comment or moderation is appropriate? Tomyumgoong 11:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Either or both is fine with me. Nandesuka 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates

Please see my comments on this re Template:User Hell, and reconsider if you think a DRV is needed for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my "reason for the undelete" was that I disagree that this falls under T1, not just that a prior deletion turned in a keep result. Had you not already listed it on DRV, I would have suggested bringing it back to tfd. In any case the drv may result in a consensus to delete, and following consensus is the only way to keep this project in one piece. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DU

The chemistry of normal natural uranium is the same as both enriched uranium and DU. The isotopic nature of the uranium has next to no effect on the chemistry. So why if the paper was about normal U is it not OK to use it in a DU page ?Cadmium 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the price quoted in the ORNL paper [1] doesn't strike one as outrageously expensive. DU sells at USD 20/kg, to put it into perspective, copper sells at about half that. Dr Zak 21:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship renewal discussion

Is now at Wikipedia talk:Adminship renewal, due to typo on my part. My apologies if it confused you. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the 2005 2006 USA Israel threats to Iran article

I think that's what it was called. I understand you deleted it. Was this as a result of the Articles for Deletion? If so, would you kindly tell where the arhived article and the results of the poll are stored. Thank you very much. Wallie 14:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is here. Kind regards, Nandesuka 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for your prompt reply. Wallie 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question (sorry). Are we allowed to start up another (new) article on the same topic, with some of the details from the old article. The reason is that some of the issues in the topic are important, both from a current and historical perspective. Note that the new article would try to be NPOV, ie, a general converage of the situation, not targeting specific countries, and giving all sides of the story. Thank you again. Wallie 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will have a look a the debate again. Thank you very much for your advice. Wallie 15:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have chance to read that deleted article. I looked at the vote for deletion [2]. Among 49, only 26 users have voted to delete it (a very slim majority). The voting has ended today (May 14). If you count votes until May 13, the votes for deletion are 16 (out of 38 votes) which is not a majority. For this kind of controversial topics (when there is no clear consensus), shouldn't you extend the voting time? Bidabadi 23:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for deciding to delete an article. It is a straight majority after a certain time? Does Strong Keep get move votes than Keep. Are the arguments taken into consderation? Is it an automatic process, or does an admin think "hmmm, looks close, I'll toss a coin?". Thanks. Wallie 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram Stark

I only changed it back because the ban timer was set at 6 months. Sorry. --Sunfazer | Talk 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was when I looked in the block log. --Sunfazer | Talk 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya -- what happened here was that User:Freakofnurture intended to reset the de jure 6 month ban, did not notice that a de facto indefinite ban had been imposed. So the edit was, technically, correct. I'm curious how Sunfazer noticed the block change. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropist

why did you delete the Misanthropist User Template ? Fallen Angel ^talk 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD#Templates. Nandesuka 12:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.25.132.168

I am not a sock puppet to WoW so please unblock me.. May you please unblock me.. I am not a sock puppet to WoW. I don't even know what that is! 66.25.132.168 is a school IP! There are many students that use this site. And if the IP is blocked indefently, That means no one can contribute to Wikipedia! Please unblock me.

nathan's talk

when did he give you permission to do this [3]? I know him and I am almost 100% sure he would not have given you permission to do so. ILovePlankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm on Wikibreak so I don't care what you do to this page." Nandesuka 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is more of a "I don't give a fuck anymore" message than a "You can change this if you want to". ILovePlankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thank you for clarifying. Nandesuka 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inches or Centimeters

((1) you're wrong, (2) there are already enough images.)

1. I am including an image of the actual scale used in the photo. You can see it next to the reverse side showing the cm scale (1 inch=2.54cm=25.4mm). Hopefully this satisfies you that the scale is in inches as the caption says.

2. I added the image as I thought it was educational. There are two images on the page which seems odd given there is such diversity in erections. I thought having an image of one with a greater angle and some curvature would be informative to readers.

Biggishben 08:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming needed

Have you ever looked at the Internet phenomenon article? It begins with "It is nearly impossible to accurately measure the depth of a phenomenon's popularity..." - brenneman^{L} 11:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

It's not a personal attack, just an observation. I said "might" instead of "should." Fear of hell depends on your religious beliefs and your (you too) own inner sense of right and wrong. Regardless, we are all responsible (liable) for the consiquences of our actions.TipPt 14:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision comments

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Al 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I disagree with your belief that I was incivil, but I will certainly take your words under advisement. Nandesuka 11:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.

The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --Wisd e n17 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

PLEASE be more careful when looking for copyvios. Other sites copy us too. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 May 20/Articles. --mav 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation News

I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.

As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.

If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Wikipedia for any length of time then please do infrom me.

I look forward to working with you. --Wisd e n17 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrators open to recall

SPAM WARNING - quasi form letter follows! (#4)
I'm attempting to open the biggest can of worms ever. You're a nice balance between "hard arse" and "man of the people." So I'd like to hear your thoughts on the category I've just created.
brenneman ^{L} 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F1 portal featured article

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Beat ya to the punch! :-) Is this one good? --D-Day was here ^{(Talk to me, baby)} 15:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any better? --D -Day ^{on WHEELS!!!} 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Nandesuka, and thank you for your positive comments in my request for adminship! (I got the buttons!!) With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again and I hope to live up to the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

RE: "wanking," etc.

Hi. Please ensure that personal attacks directed against me are limited to IRC or anywhere else outside the wiki. Thank you in advance. El_C 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted that comment as a description of #wikipedia in general rather than of you or any other individual. -Splash^talk 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just said pretty much the same thing on El C's talk page. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, I misread that and I offer my sincere apologies. El_C 02:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even speaking of #wikipedia. That's pretty much my impression of IRC as a whole. It wasn't intended as a direct personal attack on any one person, but as a general critique (or, if you will, insult) of the medium. Nandesuka 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit on edge. Thanks for understanding. Regards, El_C 03:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks on my talk page.

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Al 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Al. As always, I believe I've been perfectly civil. But I do so treasure your friendly reminders. Nandesuka 17:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. The uncivil remark in question was:

It's been my experience that once Alienus decides that someone is part of "the cabal," he doesn't let inconvenient facts get in the way of his dogma. Nandesuka 15:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can see how a reasonable person might consider this uncivil. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view that as uncivil. Simply descriptive. Kind regards, Nandesuka 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you view it isn't particularly important. What matters is whether a reasonable person could anticipate that the recipient might view it as uncivil. Consider the case of my humorous comment to Jakew, which he took offense to. Oh, wait, that case isn't parallel at all, because you never apologized and you're not getting blocked for a week. Never mind, I'll have to find a better example. Al 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. I don't try to anticipate your reactions as a reasonable person because, very often, you don't act like one. Just to pick one obvious example, reasonable people don't publish an "enemies list" on the top of their talk page, and revert even innocuous or polite comments as vandalism. Your behavior in recent weeks has, in fact, been much improved, which demonstrates that your extended blocks were, at least from a purely didactic perspective, quite effective. I sincerely hope that you can continue to grow and mature in the way you deal with editors with whom you disagree. Kind regards, Nandesuka 17:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you are pouring incivility on top of incivility. Rather than further engage you, I will show maturity by walking away. Al 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned over your censoring Cuzandor's remarks

I'm not defending him, he was way out of line. But if you completely remove any sign that he made the remarks, people might not realize what sort of person they are dealing with when they talk to him. (Of course, the edit history is still there, but it's not as immediately obvious.) I've always felt that it's best to let a fool dig his own grave with his mouth. By cleaning up after Cuzandor, you're just making it easier for him to avoid the consequences of his actions. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, he replaced Cuz's unthinking insensitivity with an allegation of bigotry. This is not an improvement. It's hardly even civil. Al 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly comfortable describing someone who talks about "African savages" as a bigot. If you're not, then that's your problem. Nandesuka 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I saw it, he was describing circumcision as savagery. Now, I wouldn't go that far, but I would also assume good faith, unlike you. Al 03:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "And how the savages in africa or australia or whatever do it too" is perfectly clear in its intent, and that you wish to make excuses for such bigotry is shameful. Nandesuka 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I assume good faith, which is what makes me such a good person. When given a chance, Cuz changed "savages" to "circumcisers", just as I expected. Speaking of expectations, your claims about my support for bigotry are as false as they are uncivil. But, of course, I don't expect you to admit this, much less apologize. Fortunately, I'm a good person, so I'll forgive you in advance. Al 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to protest that supporting (and re-adding) the phrase "how the savages in africa or australia or whatever" doesn't constitute support for bigotry as much as you like. I'm confident that all will see that you protest too much. Nandesuka 04:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to Alienus or to me? The lack of nesting to these remarks makes them a little hard to follow. Kasreyn 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Nesting fixed. Thanks. :-) Nandesuka 11:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know savage was an offensive word Cuzandor 01:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connotations often don't translate well. This is why we assume good faith. Al 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episiotomy

Better sources? At least here in Brazil they do episidotomies just like they do circumcisions in USA Check this:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7343/945

and this:

http://www.gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Tragedy_Routine_Episiotomy.htm

Cuzandor 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: User talk:Dabljuh

Sir? I confess that I'm confused... did I do something which you think is wrong? Can I help rectify it? Snoutwood (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... no worries. Yeah, I don't really get where he's coming from, myself. Or Alienus. I'd like to try and explain myself to help them out, but I don't understand them so I'm having some trouble. I'll think of something, though... or at least I'll try. :) Snoutwood (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your comments over there. Never mind, I don't think there's much I can do, unfortunately. *sigh* Snoutwood (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acuccowhatever

You are wrong. A Google search indicates the word is in very much and in fact widely used, and in the proper manner (as a synonym for the state of circumcision, although there is the odd -philia confusion). So ridiculous made-up word that nobody actually uses. is provably and verifiably false. Matter of fact is that for some reason that I do not really understand you do object to the addition of this word. Since you have repeatedly shown that you do not act in good faith, but conciously try to provoke people into breaking WP:CIV and WP:3RR as well as other rules, I must assume you, Nandesuka do this purely to annoy me and Alienus (who you, I believe, percieve as POV-Enemies?). This would constitute vandalism (As in: "Any change in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the Encyclopedia") and wikistalking. So I must ask you to please cease your vandalism / stalking, Nandesuka. It may get you banned if you continue. Dabljuh 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. I think the google search is pretty good evidence that no one actually uses the word. Nandesuka 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now vandalised my user page. I must again request that you cease your abuse, and be more careful. If you continue your behaviour, you will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Dabljuh 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, removing personal attacks -- such as the one you were recently blocked for, which you reference above -- is not considered vandalism. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should have been a block for that attack (indeed, that was my first instinct), but seeing as I missed it by a day I'm not going to do anything about it apart from bringing it up on his talk page, as the situation does not seem to have continued. Let me know if it picks up again in the future and I will happily look into the situation.

As an aside, I disagree with your removing that edit from the Circumcision talk page and from Dabljuh's user page, not because it's an attack, but because it's an attack against you. In the future, I'd recommend bringing the situation to WP:AN or the attention of another administrator such as myself, as I believe it's a bad idea to remove those sorts of things yourself. I don't necessarily disagree with your actions, but I think you'd be better off having a second party taking care of the situation rather than doing it yourself. Best, Snoutwood (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you violated 3RR. I wouldn't have reported you without giving you a chance to revert, anyhow, but we're still left with the question of why you're edit-warring to remove what is, at worst, an innocuous entry. What's so horrible about a neutral, boring synonym that makes it worth fighting over? Al 02:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have this thing against nonexistent words. What's your excuse?

Incidentally, I don't think I actually violated 3RR -- one of the edits I was counting was moving your addition of "male genital mutilation" to another place in the introduction that made more sense. But, hey, better safe than sorry. Edit warring is always a bad thing, but it takes two to tango. So, seriously: why are you adding a word that is not used in conversation, is not used in any scientific literature, is not used in any non-scientific literature, and as near as anyone can tell has an existence entirely within the rarified air of "internet dictionaries of user-contributed sex terms?" Nandesuka 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen

Please see my comments on User:Azate's talk page. Please know that both he and I agree that the tag is needed. Netscott 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I enquire as to whether or not you have fully apprised yourself of the actual history of that article's archived talk pages? Resid Gulerdem and his associated sockpuppets and anon-IPs have gone to long lengths over long periods of time to "own" that article. While I understand your concerns unfortunately I fear that you are editing from a less than fully informed position relative to the article being tagged or not. Netscott 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka! Don't remove the POV tag against my very detailled objections. I'm not an electronic library working 24 hours a day on WP. I'd have to do some work on this, re-reading books and articles and identifying good English language sources. 30 seconds is not quite enough for me for me to improve the article. All I'm willing and able to do at the moment is point out why the article seriously needs a POV tag. I did so in considerable detail. Don't expect me to come up overnight with everything that the article needs. Azate 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I expect is for you to not tendentiously edit war over the POV tag. Nandesuka 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't. I follow proper procedure (From Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup): "Guidelines for cleanup - 1. If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag on so it can be cleaned up in the future. 2. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)". This tells me two things: 1. You shouldn't remove the NPOV tag. 2. I "can just put it back". No edit war here. Azate 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative notice board

Curious, why did you delete it? Morton devonshire 01:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page's history and content both demonstrated that it was organized explicitly to push specific political positions, contravening WP:NPOV, which is a core policy here. Nandesuka 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know better.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I noticed the following uncivil edit comment by you: 2006-06-15 19:17:48 (hist) (diff) Circumcision (Rv. nonsensical and barely English.)

Come on, you ought to know better than to do this. As an admin, you're supposed to enforce these rules, not break them. Al 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop acting like a troll. I was being perfectly descriptive. The addition was nonsensical, and was barely English. Nandesuka 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Thank you for responding to my civility warning with further incivility, in the form of a personal attack. Rather than waste my time arguing the obvious, I will let your words speak for themselves. Al 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you should try doing that more often.

In any event, I'll start taking civility warnings from you seriously, as opposed to treating them like the trolling that they are, when you (a) stop trying to hide evidence of your own personal attacks on your talk page and (b) stop doing things like referring to ArbCom proceedings as "lynchings" and referring to your fellow editors as "snippies." Until then, I treat your warnings as bad-faith accusations from a repeatedly blocked offender. It turns out that we extend less good faith to editors who, like you, have squandered their credibility. If you truly believe that I have violated Wikipedia policies, then I encourage you to open an RFC or RFArb against me. I am confident that any neutral parties examining our respective histories will immediately see your antics for what they are. Nandesuka 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Calling me a troll again is a form of personal attack. Please read the rules that you're supposed to enforce. You'll find that "he called me names first" is not a defense. Likewise, you are violating WP:NPA by claiming I intended to hide supposed crimes when I wiped my page clean in disgust.

Anyhow, this is your final warning. If you continue to personally attack me, I will take the next step. Al 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Please stop trolling on my talk page. It's rude. Nandesuka 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have called me a troll yet again. This is, in and of itself, a blockable offense. Do you apologize and retract or should I file for a block now? Al 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to take whatever actions that do not violate Wikipedia policies that will result in you stopping your endless badgering and trolling on my talk page. If you feel comfortable filing for an RFC or RFArb or requesting a block for my describing your edits as trolling as such on the very same day that you refer to Arbcom as a "lynching"[4] and a "kangaroo court"[5] and calling fellow editors as "snippies"[6], presumably a reference to their genitals, then by all means go for it. Nandesuka 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not content with personal attacks and incivility, you are deleting valid warning tags even while this case is under review. Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce. Feel free to delete this, too, and even call me a troll some more. It's all in the history; you can't hide it. Al 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 05:08, 17 June 2006 edit Nandesuka (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 13,890 edits m Reverted edits by Alienus (talk) to last version by Nandesuka ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:12, 17 June 2006 edit undo Alienus (talk \| contribs) 7,662 edits It's all in the history, so you can't hide it. Next edit →
Line 271:		Line 271:

	: I encourage you to take whatever actions that do not violate Wikipedia policies that will result in you stopping your endless badgering and trolling on my talk page. If you feel comfortable filing for an RFC or RFArb or requesting a block for my describing your edits as trolling as such on the ''very same day'' that you refer to Arbcom as a "lynching"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=58968629&oldid=58965172] and a "kangaroo court"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=58974006] and calling fellow editors as "snippies"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=58968629&oldid=58965172], presumably a reference to their genitals, then by all means go for it. [[User:Nandesuka\|Nandesuka]] 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)		: I encourage you to take whatever actions that do not violate Wikipedia policies that will result in you stopping your endless badgering and trolling on my talk page. If you feel comfortable filing for an RFC or RFArb or requesting a block for my describing your edits as trolling as such on the ''very same day'' that you refer to Arbcom as a "lynching"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=58968629&oldid=58965172] and a "kangaroo court"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=58974006] and calling fellow editors as "snippies"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=58968629&oldid=58965172], presumably a reference to their genitals, then by all means go for it. [[User:Nandesuka\|Nandesuka]] 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

			Not content with personal attacks and incivility, you are deleting valid warning tags even while this case is under review. Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce. Feel free to delete this, too, and even call me a troll some more. It's all in the history; you can't hide it. [[User:Alienus\|<font color="darkcyan">Al</font>]] 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)