User talk:Nandesuka

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Welcome

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

Thanks

Thanks for the grammatical correction Lambda '00' 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Just so you know, I think that RFC nomination on your conduct is totally without merit, and I reckon it will never be certified. If it ever does, and I don't notice, email me so I can say as much. --Haemo 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Nandesuka 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper order of the main wikipedias

Sorry to bother you but i want to know where should i ask for the proper order of the ten main wikipedias in the logo page (www.wikipedia.com), if you can help me please give me word in my talk page Zidane tribal 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kategorie

Regarding Category:Virtual reality pioneers, it does seem a little OR-ish and POV, unless that's what reliable sources say about them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move at Case Closed

I write to you because I have read your contributions for the RfC for the name of the article Case Closed/Detective Conan (Currently archived at Talk:Case Closed/Name dispute discussions#Comments. A page move request has been made to move the page (and 11 related pages) to Detective Conan; please comment it on Talk:Case Closed#Requested Move.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed regarding the conduct of Certified.Gangsta.

Can I trouble you to write a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram recounting your interactions with him and your impressions of his conduct as an editor?

Thanks.

LionheartX 09:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you

regarding your edit/removal on "cult-like status" of starcraft

Hi, regarding your comment: While I agree that Starcraft is clearly popular, the statement in the opening paragraph about the "cult-like following" is pure puffery and is not supported by the source cited. I have removed it since it violated both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Nandesuka 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what qualifies as "cult-like". But starcraft is not simply just one of the most popular real-time strategy games today, but more importantly it has grown into a spectator sport. (well, in South Korea at least). They have 2 major broadcasting TV companies OGN and MBC, each with a professional starcraft gaming individual league, and a team league which is a joint effort by the two TV companies, consisting of 12 professional teams each sponsored by large Korean corporations , with hundreds of pro-gamers. The really good pro-gamers become celebrities (at least in South Korea, and quite recognizable among the niche audiences worldwide) and millionnaires. The live televised starcraft matches reguarly attract around 10 million viewers in South Korea alone. Audience worldwide can also watch the matches through internet streaming, as the pro-gaming starcraft scene does also have a sizable following in China, and a visible albeit much smaller one in North America. The truth is: at the professional gaming level, the popularity and influence of Starcraft is in its own league. It's one of a kind. It's untouchable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.194 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So find a third party source that says that. Saying it ourselves is original research. Nandesuka 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Hi Nandesuka. If you get a chance, I'd be interested in your thoughts, at Talk:Pregnancy#Fetus. Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nandesuka 11:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess we'll stick with a blurry ultrasound and drawings that make it look like a tadpole. However, I will attempt to correct the text.Ferrylodge 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon

I've had some problems with your recent edit, so I'd like you to explain your reasoning in the talk page at Talk:Dragon#External_links. If you don't give your reasoning, I'll reverse that edit after awhile. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My limits

"Whispertome, "Not censored" is nothing at all like "not edited." Questions of taste and propriety are absolutely within our standards. That is, in fact, in large part what editing is. Responsible editing, in fact, is more about deciding what to exclude than about deciding what to include. Nandesuka 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)"

Nandesuka, of course I have limits.

E.G. I cannot post anything not verifiable, one.
Two, I cannot be redundant - E.G. Writing "Blood gushed out" after each mention of a gunshot is really redundant. So is "So and so's brains dripped out" - That's redundant too. Simply avoid peacock terms, and what is presented by the media is okay. I mean, come on, we are talking about a massacre. The killer was noted for his brutality. WhisperToMe 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual agenda

I am distressed at seeing you threaten to block me over this issue. Generally, people are not blocked over editing disputes (except for 3RR). I hardly think that just 4 reverts and 1 warning is enough to justify it. Besides, if I were to revert again at this time, it would just be undone again - which is the proper way to deal with these things, not blocking one side. That is the very reason why blocks for other than simple vandalism are so deprecated - because it often amounts to taking sides. The way, the truth, and the light 13:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to respond to any of the points I made above. I am trying to continue the discussion on the talk page, yes; that is where it belongs. Decisions on content disputes should be made be the preople involved with a particular page, not hit-and-run admins. Your message on my talk page shows that you are failing to assume good faith. As I explained above I do not, and did not even before your warning, intend to continue reverting for the sake of reverting. But your inappropriate threat leaves a cloud hanging over me in regard to that article. While it's true the 3RR policy states that the rule is not an entitlement to revert 3 times every day, there is no evidence that I have treated it as such. I reverted 4 different editors, none of whom made a comment on the talk page; one of them was an anon using an incorrect edit summary. Further there had been 3 other editors who seemed to accept that the information could remain in the article, telling me that I was not alone. The way, the truth, and the light 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted on ANI about this warning. Please take any further responses there. The way, the truth, and the light 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I don't really have any further response. Regards, Nandesuka 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The way, the truth, and the light

Hi! I'm having a difficult time trying to understand some of the recent actions of User:The way, the truth, and the light. I see you have interacted with that user recently. Can you provide me with any insights? In both cases which concern me (Satellite and Orbit) this user might be leaving Wikipedia less usable (i.e. with fewer links pointing to where the editors intended them to go). I don't want to assume bad faith, but I don't have any other good theories to explain what's going on. Any insights or advice would be greatly appreciated! (Sdsds - Talk) 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you turn up the detail knob here? I looked at his recent edits but don't understand the problem. What's the issue, exactly? Nandesuka 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in the clearer light of day the situation looks better! I was apparently confusing two different users' actions. As regards "The way, the truth, and the light", my only real gripe was regarding the Orbit redirect, which is a tough situation I admit. But short term, it really needs to point to Orbit (celestial mechanics), not the disambiguation page. "The way, the truth, and the light" reverted my change there, and I confused that action with apparently independent (but eerily similar) actions at Satellite. I apologize (to you both, really) for possibly "crying wolf" mistakenly. (Sdsds - Talk) 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

— Xiong 熊 talk * 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with trolling

You should feel more free to remove trolling on sight. Definitely don't bother responding to it ... Cyde Weys 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Alright, I'll be sure to let you know. Jakew 10:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you cause tyroubles on my page

I reverted your troublesome edit on my user page, but I made sure to omit the links you hate.

How would you like it if I remove content from your user page? Would you like it? If not, then don't come to my page and trespass on it. You act without any legal authority. I have not violated any rules; No community concensus was reached. No ArbCom decision was rendered one way or the other; No decision from Jimbo or the like was done. You act without authority by causing trouble, but because I "assume good faith" and because I am a peacemaker, I remove the links you hate to death.

Why, oh why, do you hate my webpages? Also, by what authority do you act? (Even an admin must obey the rules.)

I act in peace. You act to creat and cause war and dissention.

Thanks in advance.--GordonWatts 17:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: You post to my page, you cause it troubles by removing content without permission. How do you know me -or how do you know of me, to speak with authority?

By this I mean: I've never met you; You've never met me. You don't know me, and you knowing nothing about me except what Ihas been posted. Since no legal action was taken that supported your action, I'd like to know how you know me.--GordonWatts 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that you understand that if you continue to add links to your webpages to Wikipedia you will be immediately blocked for an extended period. Regards, Nandesuka 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. Now, do you not acknowledge that you, too, must abide by the rules? By what authority do you wreak havok and damage my page? No answer on your part means you are simply hoping that you can violate rules because you're an admin. This would not be an acceptable answer. If you hold honour, then you can supply me a reason to justify your actions.

To clarify: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism prohibits the following actions: "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." This is what you did with your edit. No concensus was gained. Did you know this?--GordonWatts 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]