User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 002

I noticed that you had earlier questioned the need for Category:African American basketball players so I wanted to let you know that it has since been nominated for deletion.--YHoshua 05:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, just popped in to thank you for your kind welcome you left on my Talk page. I will do my best on here to add and contribute as much as I can in regards to helping Wikipedia expand and become more efficient. Thank you also for the helpful information, it is definitely appreciated!Piecraft 03:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You had earlier asked about how rules are handled at Bob Jones University. Since then the topic has come up again, in case you're interested, at Talk:Bob Jones University. -Willmcw 01:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Judging my this talk page, you're pretty active at RFA... so I'll add my voice and give another thanks for your vote of support regarding my request for adminship. Having someone assume I'm already an admin is quite flattering. :p Coffee 06:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've responded in the page. Bunchofgrapes 20:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for participating in Round Two of the Wikipedia:Mind Benders! The round will officially close on Friday, September 16, and round three (which is complete) will be open in the immediate days after that. A notice will be sent to you at least 48 hours before round three is set to open, to insure fairness. Round three offers 11 new exciting questions, this time written by Deryck C.. Please be sure to join in the fun! Also, congratulations to Riffsyphon1024 for winning our logo competition! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't gotten involved in any request for comment issues in the past, so I'm not sure if the article warrants it or not. It's definitely POV in multiple sections, however. If that's enough for an rfc, then so be it.--Wasabe3543 19:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Edit: The more I see how divisive this issue seems to be (especially after the last round of comments), yeah, I think a request for comment is in order--Wasabe3543 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is definitely encyclopedic-- and judging from the temperament of other editors on the topic, there is a desperate need to have it written well and objectively. Unfortunately, I don't think that is going to happen without some sort of intervention from wikipedia administration. --Howrealisreal 16:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Idont Havaname/Archive 002! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I'm glad you felt adminship was long overdue (I was sort of starting to feel that way myself). Now that it's been remedied I'll do my best. -R. fiend 19:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Turns out there is a Daniel Hoyt article, except it's under a different name: Dan Hoyt. I'm going to yank out that bit in the Asian fetish article (yes it came back), since we still don't have proof if he's specifically targetting Asian women. --Bash 01:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, so I guess you'll put it up for Afd then? ;) --Bash 03:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is definetly hard to turn into an NPOV star. To me, it gets way into it, emphasizing points that would be pretty obscure to me. Some lines I just find myself saying out loud, What?: Ironically, white men who exclusively date Asian women are often tagged with the same stereotypical qualities. They are often characterized as nerds and geeks, physically weaker and less socially capable than other white men, who “settle” for Asian women because White women reject them. --Bash 04:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because I live in Toronto, but I've actually never encountered anyone who would stereotype white men who like Asian women as somehow "weaker" or "inferior". To me, that is a brand new concept. --Bash 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that perhaps the article could benefit from being listed at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. At the very least it might increase the article's visibility and encourage different viewpoints to edit and contribute. What do you think? --Howrealisreal 18:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay I posted it up here. You should get some people to vote for it if you can. As for my talk page, I keep all my previous discussions archived at User talk:Howrealisreal/Archive. Admittedly, some times I get bored and I over-archive content (like our previous discussion on the article) too quickly. --Howrealisreal 04:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I should be more aware "Not to feed the trolls". In efforts to try to take everyone's POV seriously, inevitably it will sometimes backfire in my face. Anyway, thanks for getting back to me. --Howrealisreal 13:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA succeeded, and I appreciate that you supported it. *hugs*  Denelson83  22:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine; I didn't bother checking the Converge link to find out who it was, so your version is more helpful anyways. Kertrats | Talk 13:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Idont havename (also a nice name by the way) ;). I know you voted in opposition, but I just thought I'd bring to your attention, that my deletion of an unsigned Afd was brought to my attention by user:Tony Sidaway and I realized that this was a mistake. But of course even I make mistakes. :) I would just like you to know that I searched for the user in the edit summary for about 15 minutes before removing that unsigned vote. But thank you for voting. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a school cabal (really), but if there were, it'd be some users trying to work to replace the shrillness in school AFDs with dialogue, and assert that civility is more important than partisanship. If it existed (and it doesn't, really), it'd be dedicated to getting people to stop sniping and start talking.

There's no school cabal, really, but would you be interested in being a member if there were? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's alright, I'll leave it as you did. It wasn't an attack but it was a little ironic POV. I was thinking of starting a category of people who are only known for dating or being married to famous people. That, or people who through no achievement of their own happen to have become really, really lucky. Then I kicked myself and said it's time to put down the wikipedia already... :) ~ Reaverdrop 06:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Re. your response: thanks for the sage counsel. I'm still getting the hang of the protocols and consensus boards around here. And the consensus you described sounds quite sound - I'll leave it be. ~ Reaverdrop 18:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Shaq page is on my watchlist and I must have just loaded it right after the vandalism happened. Timing is everything. :) --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think caving to User:Leyasu's edits will solve this. They seem to read much more as dictated personal opinion (and even somewhat rant-like) than something straight-forward and informative, per the design and format of Wikipedia. Thus, I'm going to revert it back to the original version, with a polite request that User:Leyasu participate in the discussion and go into detail as to why he/she is is making these changes. --Danteferno 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Idont i am not making personal attacks and i apologise if it comes across that way. I have made no intention of making personal attacks, and also people have freely been commenting that Dante's posts are wrong. I have also explained to Dante several times why the changes are there and he has done nothing but spite and antagonise with poor argument except from, 'Im right coz i say so'. This isnt a personal attack from me, im just trying to clear up common misonception. (Edit): Idont, i will freely admit to having problems with spelling. I also have no spellcheck based word programs on my computer. If you want to spellcheck it, i would be more then gratified. Also, please go to the discussion board on Gothic Metal and note the comments against Dante's version. ~~Leyasu

In response to your last post Idont. I do concede to being angry at this point with Dante, and yes my statement was personal. I apologise to both yourself and Dante for that. I have also just corrected most of the spellings and mistakes in it, and im working on toning it to be more accesable for some readers. Again, i apologise for any offence i have caused, and will try to keep my language to a form that suits you best. ~~Leyasu

Hey, Idont. I protected Gothic Metal for you, on a randomly-chosen version. Lemme know when you need it unprotected. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with the banning of both me and user Dante until this is sorted, as i have mentioned to Dante to pool our knowledge. I am however offended by the accusation of using Sock Puppets as i have no connection to these users other than user Porkchop who i have worked with on an international basis concerning various projects and have contact with through the program Soulseek. I resent the accusation of using Sock Puppets in all forms and ask for this accusation to be striken. (Also posted this on A Man In Blacks board out of confusion of which to post this on (apologising for any incovnience my confusion causes)) ~~Leyasu

Ive posted in Gothic Metal's discussion page a revised version of the article. I mentioned on it my intentions for doing so and emplore you to take a look when you have the time. Thank you. ~~Leyasu

Added Evanescence talk page to watch. Working on compiling a list of each song the band stole and who they stole it from. Also trying to get hold of the links to a rumoured site with the court case records on. ~~Leyasu

Im not sure if the Metal Mayhem comments that have been left annoumously (spell?) are considered Vandalism or not, but i thought i should mention that there is one still on the page. I dont know wether to remove it or not because i dont know wether its Vandalism or Free Speech. Thought best to mention to you so you can do whats best. ~~Leyasu

The arguments with Dante are getting childish and stubborn. This user is rehashing old points that have already been adressed about the revised article, and making no arguments that hold any weight. Excuse me if i dont find the argument, 'X isnt on Google so it doesnt exist' or 'I think X is this so it is', because they just dont sound plausable, or act in a plausable way. I see no reason now as to why the revised version should not be posted, except the copyediting of the new part i added unless it warrants removal, as Dante's arguments have seemingly worn thin and are getting tired. I ask for your council in the posting of the revised article and when would be a feesable, and justifiable, time to do so. ~~Leyasu

Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful and add the links to enforcer-type players only. I told the webmaster of hockeyfights.com I was doing that and he basically said the same thing to me, that I should stop because it might be seen as spam, so I did. -- 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Any progress on Gothic metal? It's been a week, so I wanted to check in. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Things are going somewhat better there; we're getting some sort of consensus, but it will still need more work, I'd say. Namely, we're still debating whether to include anything about Nu-Goth and some other things - for example, one of the editors wants to make rather bold claims about/against certain bands but doesn't have any reliable sources, something that the other editors on the talk page are against. I think we should wait a little longer just so that we can get a version that is close to consensus without any one of the parties acting unilaterally in it. Right now, restricted to using the talk page, we're getting pretty good discussion (still some vandalism from anons, though), so I'd like that to continue rather than having overly-WP:BOLD edits going on in the main article. Thanks for asking about it; you might also want the opinions of User:Danteferno and User:Leyasu, the others who have been very involved with the article lately. --Idont Havaname 02:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think there's been only a limited amount of success; one of the editors concluded that a band he mentioned as an "instigator" had no source to show that it is an instigator, so he dropped it. However, that's as far as things go. In order for this discussion to progress further there needs to be more participation in the debate (regardless of who stands for what) because for the past week, I have acted as the sort-of "spokesperson" as to why the original edit should probably remain, and while that (so far) seems to be a "popular opinion", it probably comes off as uncompromising and partisan to this other user. Perhaps there's a language barrier (I don't speak Polski(?)/Dutch(?)) or perhaps just another, more neutral/middle person needs to be involved, but at this point, just "User:Danteferno vs. User:Leyasu" is not going to solve things. Danteferno 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted old comments to save room on your board. Ive edited the temp page further, in an attempt to make it more accesable to people of varying reading abilities and nationalites. Can you please run it by and leave a message when ur done, as i dont think there is anything else now that needs to be edited, and if i have your agreement, it should be posted, as i have to take leave of absence from my computer as im going away for a while. (Edit) I think it might be worth archiving most of what is on the discussion board now and leaving room for further disussion on the revised article, if not deleting old arguments from the archives all together to save room. ~~Leyasu

Hello. Round four of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Thursday, December 1. This round will be drastically different from round three; part one will consist of a creative project, and part two will be developed from there. The full details will be released when the round opens. Time and speed should not be major factors in this round; thus, there is no exact opening time for the round as speed will not factor into the scoring. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add Wikipedia:Mind Benders/to do to your watchlist to receive further announcements; the NotificationBot is currently down and all notifications will be placed on that page. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy. If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. Special thanks to Fetofs for helping distribute this message.

I didn't start the decency project and when it survived the AfD I immediately changed the title and direction of the project. Furthermore, I agree that the original scope of the project was unwiki. I would say, in all fairness that saying that I have been behaving well for a week is a mischaracterization. It would be more accurate that I misbehaved for one week during that contentious period than to mischaracterize the solid contributions to this wiki (article creation and enhancement) that I have performed and which greatly exceeds many other admin candidates. Regardless, I appeciate you taking the time to voice your opinion.--MONGO 21:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As with all processes on WP, you are welcome to contribute until the process is closed. It hasn't been yet, and you should feel no obligation to withdraw. -Splash^talk 21:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Splash is right and if you felt that I was trying to tell you that your opinion didn't matter I certainly apologize. I am happy to read that you had planned on changing your vote to neutral and I appreciate that. If you need anything, never hesitate to ask!--MONGO 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled across your page after you edited the Florida Marlins' article (I have it on my watchlist) and was very surprised at our similarities - majoring in Computer Science, minoring in Astronomy (though I'm only a first-year, I've been strongly considering it), and hardcore fans of baseball. You're maybe the fourth person I've ever even clicked on a user page for, and up pops all of this stuff... what are the odds? Just thought I'd drop in and say hey - it was good to know someone else had similar interests and has gone down the path I hope to over the next four years.

Anyway, that's all. Take care!

Zyarb 21:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked over the Temp page, and while Leyasu removed most of his outlandish claims, his version is still a mess. The first problem is the formatting, which seems to go from point C, to point B, to point A, then back to point B, and then point D. Then, point B hates point C. It reads like a stream of consciousness and after one gets through everything, there's really no clarity as to what the exact definition of the genre is (whereas the original, which, so far is preferred by all, is obviously straight-forward-A-B-C-and-D: Enter Goth/synth rock music of the 1980s, Some Doom/Death heads in Britain would become influenced by it and weld it into their sound, they would "lighten up" their style (sometimes female vocalists taking a lead) and the genre would take shape. Music history confirms this evolution quite well, based on influences of the bands in subject.

Read it through, your the only person who has made that complaint, and others from others have read it at my request, and yours, and have said mine is much clearer, much more definative, and much more accurate. Also, yeah, its fine going, A, B, C, D, as does mine, but it does help somewhat when, A, B, C, D, are actually correct, which most of yours isnt.

Something I've been meaning to ask: Before Leyasu entered the picture, there were no disputes with the Gothic Metal article. So, what really qualifies as a dispute? For instance, this probably hasn't happened here, but suppose 2 or more different sides have opposing viewpoints as to the actual birthdate of some controversial historical figure. The debate goes on, on, and on, and more 'Wikiers join on either side of the debate. Second, take this scenario - a page is fine at first, until a phantom user out of nowhere wants to re-write it, with poor punctuation, spelling, no research, no references, and strongly point-of-viewed rendering of band(s) mentioned. Phantom user doesn't seem to understand the criticisms made by others and precedes to smear or disregard those who make the criticisms. Both scenarios may spur discussion - but is the second really a dispute?

I already mentioned about trying to besmearch me. And as for no research, i already gave you a host of websites, exactly the same as yours, speculative and POV, and u discounted them, because they dont agree with your argument. Also, your critiscisms havent been constructive like Idont's have, yours and your 'sock puppets' have been nothing more, than very badly masked personal attacks, and very badly masked, points of you not liking people editing what you write.

Due to the smears and misquotes our friend has used, part of me hasbelieved (at first) that intentions were of a troll, as similar disruptive tactics are used. Attempts at solidarity seem to be for naught, as each criticism made by others is answered back to the "big, mean Dante" (really the iceberg's 'tip'). Care to add 2 cents? --Danteferno 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the pinacle of Dante's argument and it in itself is contradictory. Yes my spelling isnt the best in the world, i already have said that, and said to Dante, as can be read, stop arguing that your writing is always right, when it is in FACT wrong, and help make a better article, by using your better english skills, with actuall correct information. Also, his argument contradicts himself, in the part he claims it comes back to, 'big, bad Dante', well his whole argument, when he has had no way of claiming anything ive said is wrong, is 'Leyasu is a troll', or, 'Leyasu is vandalising'. This has happened every time ive answered to one of Dante's points that he cannot answer back to. This argument is tedious, and if the user Dante has nothing constructive to say, i ask for him to not say anything at all. As the article's revision is supposed to be something we all agree on, not just what Dante agrees on. ~~Leyasu

Sorry to seem like i am hassling you, but Dante's comments are becoming more personal and less about the article. He is also beginning to make comments that are not constructive, and lie only in the vein of the article should be to only his liking, accurate or not. I am considering from this point, disregarding user Dante's comments on the basis they are neither constructive, or give any reason as to anything he claims is bad about the revised article. I now ask yourself, as to why the article doesnt flow well, and for you to clearly highlight the parts that dont and explain them, as after asking user Dante, he simply avoided answering. I see this as probally the last thing that needs to be done to the article before it is posted, but if you disagree, i respect your view, as you havent made barely disguised personal attacks, and have seemingly remained indifferent on the whole issue. This is not asking for you to take sides as Dante might make yet to claim, this is asking for guidance on something i fail to see within the article. ~~Leyasu

Thank you for your prompt reply. In re: good faith, I would like to think so, too. However, as we will all tell, the morale in trying to debate with him has lowered for his continued use of unsubstantiated claims and arguments that seem to be anything but serious.

It comparison, it seems to be like this:

• A:"Pulp Fiction is Steven Spielberg's best movie!".
• B: "Pulp Fiction was directed by Tarantino, not Speilberg."
• A:"That is POV/Speculation! Provide proof!"
• B:"Internet Movie Database."
• A:"The Internet Movie Database is updated by 14-16 year olds! And everyone knows it was Spielberg who made the film, Tarantino sued for the rights and won."
• B:"What proof do you have that this and this lawsuit happened?"
• A:"What proof do you have that there wasn't a lawsuit? That is POV/speculation. Provide proof that Speilberg didn't direct it."

One will see the lack of logic in "A's" argument, first denouncing andsmearing a generally reputable source of movie information (IMDb), "A" then makes a ridiculous claim (a lawsuit that never happened between Tarantino and Speilberg) and then asks for proof that it didn't happen vs. providing proof that it did. This mirror's Leyasu's critera quite well in the Gothic metal page and the website sources provided (Allmusic.com, Metal Archives, BNR Metal Pages, and Gothic Metal . NET.) One will also see that some of these sites have their own reference page on Wikipedia, and that there is NO criticism on them that validates the unsourced claims Leyasu has made.

When you have the time, do you think you could look into Leyasu's claims against these sites? As far as I'm concerned, until proof is provided against them, they are perfectly appropriate (and accurate) for the Gothic metal page references. One lone (and very vague) dissenter shouldn't drag everyone else down. --Danteferno 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I decided to take my own solouting, and include ALL the fan sites bar one, regardless of their contradctions, as twice in the revised article it mentions about debates amongst fans. Thus now, i see no reason as to why the new version should not be posted, except for minor copyediting you may wish to do. If there is no substantial reason as to why the revised version should not be posted, (and Dante's 'i dont agree because its not what i want it to be' argument (which is what it sounds like it is) doesnt count as subsational, then i will post it in place of the old version. I apologise if this sounds snappy. ~~Leyasu

I wholy resent the unfounded accusation of me using sock puppets. One of those users i know due to him being my brother-in-law, Porkchop1234 - who uses the program Soulseek to communicate with me (http://www.slsknet.org). The others i dont know, and the whole implication of me using Sock Puppets is simply Dante's disagreement with what i said. The point in my claiming he is using sock puppets, is simply to point out one of his claims in reference to ignoring things that dont suit his argument, and claiming things i have neither said, nor done. ~~Leyasu

Old discussion or not. Its a point held against me for something I DID NOT DO. If they were posting from the same adress, that is them using sock puppets, not me. Im sure you could also check my adress. I have actually asked people to REFRAIN from commenting like my brother-in-law did, because of this. And im sorry, but i dont take well to people claiming i have done something i have not, as that is a very personal, and offensive thing for someone to say about me. ~~Leyasu

No, my intentions are definitely not to use your talk page to argue with Leyasu. The only mention of him is in regards to the Gothic metal discussion, but I addressed only you, and there was no motion (or attempt) to summon his feedback or opinion. Based on his unwanted response to one of my posts above (I assume that is what you referred to) I do apologize for his rudeness.

Much luck on the exam, btw! --Danteferno 00:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, whatever your name is, for your support. It wasn't overdue... just due. ;-) I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. Thanks again. BD2412 T 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)