User talk:Nandesuka

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article change

I logged in. I am not a vandal. I was adding information I obtained personally - it is valid. I will try to add it again.P5g4xn (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I see the point. Published things only. Also, she has a different last name, but I don't think I should mention it here to protect her privacy. Another reason to drop this is the fact that some people are claiming that Mia Farrow more or less confirmed something bad in her autobiography (hopefully not ghost-written). I guess I should check with that and see what Mia really said there. If she said something quite different than Prudence, that would really disappoint me.P5g4xn (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CHILDBIRTH article change

You asked for a reference, and here is one, but I don't know how to insert it into the article. could you do it, or show me how? marydbw Pain Management by Jennifer N. Ayers-Gould, BA LPN ICCE "By numbing ourselves to the powerful and empowering sensations of birth, we are becoming detached from our physical-spiritual-emotional beings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marydbw2 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

AS

Eeek, a nice clean talk page. Are you still following Asperger syndrome? It was FARd for the third time, and has been rewritten top to bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Twin

Per WikiRage.com, the article Twin received heavy editing today by unregistered users and may benefit from a good review. Per Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion process vote count

In your edit here, you say that you "discounted all opinions, whether keep or delete, from editors with fewer than 50 edits". Can you please point me to any policy page regulating which votes are to be counted/discounted. Thx. --Xeeron 12:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Ney

I just happened to notice you spoke French and was wondering if you might be able to help out with the Jean-Paul Ney article, the sources for content are all in French, and there is a concern that some of it may violate WP:BLP. Thanks! Dreadstar † 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Pit.png

Thanks for uploading Image:The Pit.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI - WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action

I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Targ (Star Trek)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Targ (Star Trek), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Targ (Star Trek). Ejfetters 06:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

COI at Pubic hair article

Hi Nandesuka

I suspect this issue has long been resolved by now, but please let me know if you need any help. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Past headaches...

Remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive53#Extended block for User:Justforasecond? He's at it again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC Arbcom

I believe it was you who added two "findings of fact" to the case, mirror images to whether or not #wikipedia-en-admins is an official channel. If I am correct, would you mind signing them please? Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder! Nandesuka (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Targ (Star Trek)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Targ (Star Trek), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Targ (Star Trek). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I've merged it into a new List of Star Trek animals, which satisfies notability. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Death race.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Death race.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sammylightfoot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sammylightfoot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Space-spartans-box.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Space-spartans-box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ilaria_D'Amico.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ilaria_D'Amico.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill Page Edits

You accused me of “misquoting” [1]. However, the text I added ("[The] Keetoowah Band stopped recognizing such "honorary" memberships in 1994.") comes directly from a source cited on the page [2]. What do you mean when you say “misquoting”? Steve8675309 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As written, the text in the reference implies that the cited source says that the Keetowah Band does not recognize Churchill's honorary membership, which is exactly opposite to the very sentence you quote, in which the tribe acknowledges the validity of said membership. Therefore, using such text is misquoting the reference. Nandesuka (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your convoluted and incorrect interpretation of the text does not change the fact that my edit was nothing other than a verbatim quote of the source. There was no 'misquote'. Steve8675309 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you quote a movie review that says "It was amazing how bad this movie was" as "It was amazing...", you are misquoting. That's what you did. Nandesuka (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote was in context. The article's subtitle, "Indian tribe states membership is not recognized," also contradicts your strange interpretation of the text. Perhaps you should reread the article [3] and review the definition of "misquote" [4]. Have a nice day! Steve8675309 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding sourced material to the article Pregnancy. It helps the project's credibility, rather than let opinion, myth, and iffy personal views stand unsourced. :) For a minute there I thought I was alone, and began do doubt my sanity. Well, really the sanity of others. lol. Thanks again. ←Gee♥Alice 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glans penis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Nandesuka (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of Kalindoscopy (talk · contribs)

Hi there. The user hopped on #wikipedia-en-help as well as understood my comments made in response to a {{helpme}} he/she left and seemed fairly genuine about wanting to contribute positively in the future, so since it was the first block I reduced the duration down to 48 hours (since, obviously, the user had vandalized/made personal attacks); but, it also seems like he didn't understand the difference between User: and User talk: pages, hence part of the misunderstanding. In any case, if you have any reason at all to re-increase the block, please feel free to do so. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in case either of you didn't notice: this was one of his previous edits as one of the 81. IPs. You can trace them through the history of the Artistic inspiration article. There's a bit more history here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I trust your judgment. Nandesuka (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Please do not edit my discussion posts. β^_command 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make it necessary to edit your discussion posts by your being incivil. Nandesuka (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay porn bio

I see you've recently restored sourced material to the Michael Lucas bio. Please consider restoring the content discussed in detail below.

Michael Lucas or somebody claiming to be him posted a statement on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his having been a prostitute, [5], a reference which has stood for over a year. Editor David Shankbone replied there specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes", [6]. Prior to this, Shankbone three times restored the prostitute reference when it had been deleted by the now-banned editor Lucasent, [7], [8], [9]. Shankbone has admitted to having corresponded with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Subsequently, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort", [10].

There are LGBT-related editors who work in concert and coordinate support for LGBT-related articles. In particular, editor Benjiboi who himself previously restored the prostitute reference after editor Lucasent deleted it, [11], now says it "isn't central or notable to his bio", [12]. Why restore it in the first place if it wasn't central or notable? As noted above, Shankbone restored the prostitute reference three times, and Benjiboi once. Another LGBT editor, Jeffpw, also restored the prostitute reference three times after deletion by Lucasent, [13], [14], [15], calling it "sourced material." The prostitute reference had been restored a total of seven times by three editors. The prostitute reference stood until Lucas expressed his dissatisfaction -- then Shankbone reversed and contradicted himself, removed it and substituted the term escort. Escort is not interchangeable with prostitute, it ignores the sexual component of the trade -- the prostitution. The source says Lucas worked in prostitution and founded his production company with money he earned in prostitution -- nowhere does it say escorting. Other reliable sources listed above say Lucas was a prostitute.

This article has been a COI, POV, OR, and BLP nightmare almost since its inception. A review of its history and previous COI [16] and its archive [17] reveals how Lucas has worked through others to edit the article to his liking, i.e., to whitewash and sanitize it. Now Shankbone is editing for Lucas as he wants his bio to read, and other LGBT editors have rallied to support those edits.--72.76.14.153 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)