User talk:Itake: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:32, 31 March 2006 editItake (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,217 edits →No personal attacks ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:19, 24 January 2024 edit undoIxfd64 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators69,882 edits Notification: listing of File:Spcscreen.JPG at WP:Files for discussion.Tag: Twinkle
(111 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== ] ==
	== Help with Translation!? ==

			{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
	Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 -->

			== ] ==
	''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.''

			{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
	--] 10:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 -->

			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	==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 Misplaced Pages. (] 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

			{{Ivmbox\|Hello, Itake. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	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 ] 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Cyde rant #1 ==

			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	That's it, you've pushed it too far . Continue violating ] and you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
			\|Scale of justice 2.svg\|imagesize=40px}}

			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/9&oldid=750550523 -->
	:Those are strong words from a regular user like the rest of us. Aren't ''you'' violating the civility guidelines? --] 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
			== File:Spcscreen.JPG listed for discussion ==

			] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
	:: I'll see you in the area of the blocked people then, Cyde. ] 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. ] 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Gastrich #1 ==

	Hi Itake, I hope you're well. I was reading your dialogue with ] 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 ] is a diploma mill exemplifies his POV and reveals that he probably isn't thinking in the best interest of Misplaced Pages.

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

	Sincerely, --] 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. ] 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

	::::: I'm your huckleberry. Show me what you've got. - ] 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), 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 . If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Misplaced Pages, please see the site!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	== Cyde rant #2 ==

	In response to your message ... this is your final warning. Stop the personal attacks. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 18:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

	I came here to warn you about edits like this , 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. ] 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. ] 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::Jason Gastrich is well known for using sockpuppets - see - 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 ] and ]. --] <small>]</small> 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. ] 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	::::::: I didn't ask that. I asked if it applies to ''you''. Yes or no. - ] 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.
	::::::::You don't owe him an answer. Pray for him. God will be taking care of him for eternity unless he sees the light. --] 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 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. - ] 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. ] 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? - ] 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? ] 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? - ] 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. ] 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. - ] 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. ] 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''? - ] 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? ] 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. - ] 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. ] 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. - ] 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. ] 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::: Veiled and rather pathetic attempt at an insult noted. Does Matt. 5:39 apply to ''you''? - ] 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. ] 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''? - ] 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	== Blocked ==

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

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

	== Blanking ==

	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. --] <small>]</small> 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. ] 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	::Is a consensus needed? It is a statement of fact. ] ] 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 ] consist entirely of vote recruiting (in Gastrich's initimable style) and edit warring over ], promoting Gastrich's book. He is Gastrich. --] <small>]</small> 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	::: Sarcasm, still my second language. Point proven. ] 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. ] ] 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. ] 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. ] ] 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

	== Consensus ==

	I believe you're confusing ] with ]. In AfD, a supermajority is generally considered consensus. With respect to ], 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 ] article, the content is still available for anyone to see. With all due respect, you're making mountains out of molehills here. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

	::Easier said than done since ] is currently locked. Although it could be put on the talk page. ] ] 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

	==RfC==

	Itake, if you can show me where I've violated any Misplaced Pages 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. ] 04:06, 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/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. --] 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. {{Vandal\|Itake}} ] 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. ] 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Abusive admins ==

	Hey Itake, I see that you're vocal about the poor behavior of certain admins. Add ] to your list. He keeps deleting all kinds of great, informative information about ]. 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. --] 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Oh he's on my list alright. ] 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. --] <small>]</small> 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::Itake, the nonsense continues. Now ] won't respond on the talk page, but hijacks the ] 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. --] 10:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

	::::(Turkmen is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich) ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Gastrich RfC ==

	Itake, there is a proposal for resolution active at ]. 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 ]) 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. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

	== List ==

	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.] 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

	== oh really? ==

	Conservata veritate

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

	== Were you contacted by anyone to vote in the AfD? ==

	Hello, I am curious if anyone contacted you asking you to particpate in the AfD of the TRACS schools? ] 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 ] 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. ] 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

	:: Yes or no? ] 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. ] 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

	::::: Gastrich is already banned, no? ] 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. ]

	::::::: Is it a violation to contact people and ask them to vote in an AfD? ] 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. ] 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

	:::::::::::: 'tis true. ] 21:27, 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? ] 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Latest revision as of 05:19, 24 January 2024

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Itake. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Spcscreen.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spcscreen.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)