User talk:Ta bu shi da yu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ta bu shi da yu (talk | contribs) at 10:04, 13 November 2004 (→Comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Krishna's Butterball
Krishna's Butterball is a large granite balancing rock that rests on a short incline in the coastal resort town of Mamallapuram in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It is approximately six metres (20 ft) high and five metres (16 ft) wide, with a mass of around 250 tonnes. It is balanced on a slope on top of a 1.2-metre-high (4 ft) plinth that is a naturally eroded hill. Krishna's Butterball is part of the Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram, a UNESCO World Heritage Site built during the 7th and 8th centuries as Hindu religious monuments by the Pallava dynasty. It is now a popular tourist attraction.Photograph credit: Timothy A. Gonsalves
Archive – More featured pictures...
Ta bu shi da yu talk archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12
Leaving Wikipedia
Archive 13
Archive 14
whole section (deleted) missing
Archive 15
Archive 16
Archive 17
Archive 18
Archive 19
Archive 20
Archive 21
Archive 22
Archive 23
Archive 24
Archive 25
Archive 26
Archive 27
Archive 28 (last)
User:Ta bu shi da yu [edit]

Talk to me, I'm not an ogre! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(As wikipedia seems to be having refresh issues, I'm adding a link to purge the cache of this page]. Gah!

Lake Burley Griffin references

Someone has made an objection to Lake Burley Griffin receiving featured status on the basis of a references section that's a bit of a mess. They're all there, but just need to be put in the right format - would you be able to have a go? Of all of us Aussie editors, I think you're the best at this stuff. Ambi 06:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

MPLS and PHB

Hey, these are separate topics. You have have DiffServ (and PHB's) in a system without MPLS (DiffServ operates at the IP level); similarly, MPLS is used to carry non-IP traffic. You should remove the {{merge}} from both. Noel 07:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks! Besides, you spurred me into improving the MPLS article - hopefully it's a little clearer what it's place is in the large scope now. Noel 08:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Strathfield photos

Are you up for taking those digital photos of Strathfield landmarks? Don't be shy, I don't bite ;-) The weather forecasts for Thursday and Friday look OK, so if you'd like we can do it together then, or alternatively you can give me a list of what you want photographed and I'll do it when I get a chance. -- Nickj 00:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict; Alberuni and Yoshiah

  • OK, regardless of what happened (see below) this needs fixing. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote.

Yoshiah put up the VfD notice on Zionist Revisionism and then copy and pasted it to a new page. I recovered it best I could.--Alberuni 05:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VfD - Zionist Revisionism

Hi,

I had moved Zionist Revisionism to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict in an attempt to NPOV the article, but user Alberuni reverted the changes to it.--Josiah 07:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Al Qa Qaa controversy timeline

Thanks :) Sbwoodside 13:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I completely disagree. Is this rapid revenge for disagreeing with you on another subject, I wonder? There is not even an entry on Al Qa Qaa (and quite rightly not). The guy is trying to make a political point with a Wikipedia page. It should be deleted. Dude, if you don't agree, why don't you put it on VfD?Dr Zen 05:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what this person is talking about. This is the first time I've ever encountered him. In any case, I won't be putting it on VfD because I don't agree with him. That's beside the point: candidates for speedy deletion should only be deleted in they are:
  1. No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters). See patent nonsense.
  2. Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").
  3. Pure vandalism, such as spam. (see also dealing with vandalism).
  4. Very short articles with little or no context (proposed: ", such that further research and expansion is not possible.") (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.")
    • Turning such pages into relevant redirects may sometimes be appropriate if any potential context can be found.
    • Be aware that some articles are contributed from other Wikipedias, and non-fluent English speakers, which may lead to the misunderstanding of the content.
  5. Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy.
    • This does not apply to content that was undeleted according to undeletion policy.
    • (Proposed) Caution should be used if the only prior deletion was a speedy delete. Re-creation of the article may in some cases be evidence that the topic deserves the opportunity to expand for a short time, and later, the full VfD discussion.
  6. Articles created and edited solely by a banned user after they were banned, unless the user has been unbanned. This is slightly controversial!
  7. Foreign language articles that already exist on another Wikimedia project, as a result of having been copied and pasted in to Wikipedia after their creation elsewhere, or as a result of having been moved via the transwiki system.
  8. Temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories after a cut and paste move.
- Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ahh, a rules lawyer! I see. User:This person.
Yes, a "rules lawyer". Aka "Administrator". - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I had this kind of thing more in mind. I prefer creative thinking and fair dealing but I happily accept that YMMV. Be happy.Dr Zen 06:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think Dr Zen is under the impression that I really care. I don't really. I'm just doing the job of an admin — always a thankless task. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the note on my page. All the best, --wayland 06:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oi you!

Thanks for the reminder about archiving my page.

I am still here, but you seemed to go offline amidst all those netsplits. What happened? Ambi 14:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Christian views of women

Hi Pedant... appreciate your work, but don't you think that "Jesus' stories often centered on deeds of compassion and generosity, traits often associated with womankind. An example is the Tale of the Widow's Mite, in which a tiny gift from an impoverished woman is regarded by Christ as being a generous gift, equal with a lavish gift from a rich man." is a bit of a long bow to stretch? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't recognise the idiom "is a bit of a long bow to stretch" . Could you restate your question?Pedant 16:08, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 21:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex071404

Serious? What part? As far as I know, he hasn't edited any of the pages from which he was banned. Also, a bunch of the people he engaged in revert wars with previously, are aware that he is posting from 216.153.214.94 now.

Anyway, things like this. 216.153.214.94 editing Rex's user page, without Rex batting an eyelid. [1]

Another here. Rex adds his vote to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality [2] then he notices a mistake but forgets to log in before correcting it. [3]

Another here. Rex makes four attempts to get a paragraph added to the Dedham, Massachusetts page, then the ban happens (nothing to do with this page AFAIK) and he disappears, then 216.153.214.94 pops up a few days ago and restarts Rex's crusade. For exactly the same paragraph. [4] AlistairMcMillan 08:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Boone

During the debate on VfD, somebody moved the content of John Boone into Mars trilogy. I agreed that this was acceptable; my goal was to preserve the content. I stopped tracking the voting, really, after this, and assumed that consensus had been reached. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Egils saga

Halló Ta bu shi da yu! I found you at [5]. I have seen (today) that I made a mistake. Plesse see Talk:Egils saga. Now there is a stub for Egill Skallagrímsson. I included the pictures at no: and now there are at is: too. Do you have time wo expand the article? Are you familiar with other languages? Gangleri 21:35, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

My strange entry to ""Navel_gazing"

Sorry. I put it in the wrong page. Anthony Appleyard 06:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Punk1

I think my comment was appropriate. The user is a moron and a vandal. He moved dozens of pages, causing a lot of trouble for us. I don't regret what I wrote at all, and don’t think I have to be friendly to destructive and malicious page-move vandals. Regards -[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:34, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

overseas cousin

Although I am not sure why we're cousins, I can understand the overseas... And I welcome the welcome. Cheers, [[User:Notafish|notafish }<';>]] 15:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I speak no Mandarin, but I like the name all the same. Glad to meet you then, overseas cousin :) . [[User:Notafish|notafish }<';>]] 10:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australian images

Hello Jimbo, just a quick question about Aussie images. We don't actually have any fair use legislation in Australia (rather we have fair dealing legislation - considerably different) and so if I want to place any government images onto the website I need to secure permission from the Australian government department first. Regrettably, this means that only the main Wikipedia site will be able to use these images (especially historical ones where we can't get our own images). I want to place an image of Cyclone Tracy onto the website, but this will mean restricting the image use. What is your take on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. In general we very much like to avoid images with any sort of non-free license. Getting a nice photo for our website, but that isn't GNU-free doesn't really help our mission much, unfortunately, and may actually hinder it it a bit, because the convenience may prevent us from seeking creative ways to get free alternatives. Jimbo Wales 05:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:VFD/HS

Just letting you know that I thought you might be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools, as well as what I wrote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:03, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Zionism is the problem

Zionism is the political ideology behind the revisionism that denies and excuses Israeli atrocities so, no, I don't think changing the name to obscure the role Zionism and Zionists play is appropriate.--Alberuni 17:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Regarding your comment about "abrasiveness". Can I ask what specifically has given you that impression? -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Perhaps abrasiveness was the wrong word. I just don't think you're ready for adminship yet. I think you are a good contributor, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Can you give any specific feedback as to why I wouldn't be "ready"? Is your evaluation of that based on the other votes, or something else? -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Netaholic's behaviour on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities and 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities has confirmed my choice was correct. I have placed a message stating as such on his webpage, however he has seen fit to remove it. Can't do much about this I suppose. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NWS

I placed a larger NWS logo on the NOAA page for you. Couldn't find any other items on the list that, but on the bright side, thats 1 down and 2 to go. TomStar81 22:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale

I haven't really followed the article's progression, but I know you're a driving force behind exploding whale awareness here. So congrats on the main page! Rhobite 01:27, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well done. Tim Ivorson 11:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

alferd packer

hey there, you whats really funny? i just happened to read that article maybe two days before i got your message! coincidence? --Larsie 19:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speedy...?

Hi. I'm not sure what it is you meant on my talk page, unless it had to do with that B-Movie Bandit stub from yesterday. I posted that for a speedy before it had been moved to VfD. Hope that clears things up. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template:In the news

It has been agreed that, since 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities is not a news item on any major service, it does not belong on Template:In the news. Please revert. -- Netoholic @ 02:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Both sides are talking on IRC, and Jimbo expressed a dislike for it, also. -- Netoholic @ 02:09, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

OK, here is proof - it is not front page on any of these. As we only have space for three news items, surely this one is not valid. -- Netoholic @ 02:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


(to Ta bu shi da yu)

You came very close to violating the 3 revert rule, and I was forced to protect the page due to the edit war (and why the heck did you put an NPOV header on OUR FRONT PAGE). You are an admin - please abide by the rules and courtesies of Wikipedia. Thanks, ugen64 02:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, do you really think it was appropriate to put an NPOV header on our front page? Secondly, edit warring in any form (whether or not you reverted three times, I never accused you of doing so) is unbecoming of an administrator. Thirdly, Netoholic raised valid concerns, to which you responded (and I applaud you for that), meaning that the objections were at least stated on the talk page. Thanks, ugen64 02:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, I did not say it was against policy to revert, I stated reverting "is unbecoming of an administrator"; administrators are generally held to higher standards, and should definitely follow normal courtesies. As for your IRC comment - what exactly is wrong with discussing on IRC? It is a lot easier to get real-time comments between many different parties in a chat, rather than on the rather slow and edit-conflict-prone Wikipedia talk pages. Thanks, ugen64 02:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, it is very sluggish to do much of any discussion on Wikipedia, or on the mailing list (of which I am not a part, in any case). As for your behavior, it seems inherent (to me at least) that placing a glaring NPOV header (or any header, for that matter) on a main page template would violate common sense. While I should probably retract my statement of "please abide by the rules," it still remains that edit warring on any page is strongly discouraged, especially on the, by far, most highly viewed page on the Wikipedia. Thanks, ugen64 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In what way is discussing on the IRC channel *not* being held to a higher standard? It's a different matter if we were all congregating to decide which user to ban as a "troll" because we didn't like him or her, but in this case we were simply discussing whether or not the election fraud page belonged on the main page. While I had my own opinions, the only decisions I made were to protect the page due to an edit war (after having been informed of the problem by several users) then to proceed to warn you. There is no *standard* to which users are held, regarding their participation on the IRC channel.
Also, my comments regarding the "sluggishness" of the talk page were relative. I had decided to protect the page; however, I just offhandedly asked on the IRC channel if it was all right. I was not formulating any policy, nor making any decisions on IRC - I was simply asking for a casual confirmation. (Why does this seem like a repeat of my defense on Cecropia's talk page?) However, if you object to discussion on the IRC channel, I fully respect that; it seems unreasonable and unrealistic, however, to limit all wikipedia-related substantive discussion to the Wikipedia talk pages. Of course, I wouldn't decide to change the blocking policy on the basis of an IRC chat with a few of my wikifriends, but in this case, again, it was simply a casual, non-binding confirmation. By the way, don't take my comments as representative of anyone besides me - other users of the IRC channel may disagree with me completely, and hate me for this defense... Thanks, ugen64 03:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. Rdsmith4 was on the IRC channel, but I do not think he said anything about the issue until after he reverted. Ed g2s (or whatever his username is) was never on the IRC channel. Our discussions were, as far as I can recall, regarding whether or not to protect the page, and while we did talk about your (in our opinion) questionable edits, we didn't make any IRC-collaborative decisions to revert you. (this is ugen64 on an IP) 208.27.204.4 18:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocking 216.148.246.90

Hi. I saw that you sent a final warning message to that user, and then a couple minutes later, you blocked them. However, if you compare their talk page with their contrib.s, you will see that they made their last edit BEFORE your final warning, so I don't think that their block was warranted just yet (they stopped vandalizing after your final warning). I'm unblocking, but if I'm mistaken, please let me know, and I will reblock (or you can do it). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks for your message. I've left them a message on their talk page so that they know they're not invincible ;) -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It looks like they got the point :D, I hope they won't be vandalizing again. Personally I hate blocking users, that's why I give them at least three warnings before doing so- even if it's obvious vandalism. Maybe it's a phobia I have? I've never had to block a user, but it's probably because of my long and slightly threatening vandalism warning ;). "For your reading pleasure, I don't plan to archive [my talk page]." That's a subtle joke on the top of my talk page. I also have an irrational fear about archiving my talk page :). Maybe if it gets REALLY big, I'll archive it. I should've archived it on the anniversary of my first edit on Wikipedia, but I suppose it's too late for that now :(. Does archiving really make a difference, since most people use the 'post message' button? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, see your point ;). Maybe when it gets to a nice number...like 100. I see why you wanted to block the user before they made any more disruption. While I think you were a bit quick in actually blocking them, I definately agree with your reasons. Anyhow, I'm going to go play, then sleep :). Good night- it was nice talking to you :). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Edit summaries are for documenting the changes you made, not for the reasons you made them. Do not leave edit summaries which comment directly on other users ("First Netoholic removes it for "original research", then removes it because the info is duplicated. There is nothing wrong with summarising info. Reverting.") -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


Stop trolling my user page. -- Netoholic @ 04:16, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


DO NOT INTERFERE WITH USER SUBPAGES. That is MY user space. You are abusing your admin rights in moving them rather than honoring my deletion requests. IF you do not desist I will take you directly to arbitration. I have never seen such a grevious abuse. -- Netoholic @ 04:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

You moved all of my old archives, and then just deleted the redirects. That is OUTSIDE the bounds of your rights. -- Netoholic @ 04:39, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
OK, I'll do a copy of the archives and then delete the page, then recreate by pasting them back in. That OK with you? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why are you harassing me like this. I supported your adminship and have never taken issue with you. -- Netoholic @ 04:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
I just noticed this comment. Whether Netoholic supported my adminship or not doesn't fuss me in the slightest. I will not be treating Netoholic differently to any other user just because he voted for me. I have taken issue with Netoholic's behaviour and unilateral editing technique, which rubs many people up the wrong way in a consensus driven website. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Netoholic, these archives are duplicated in the page history because they were archived via copy+paste. As such I don't see any reason not to delete them. — Kate Turner | Talk 04:47, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I doubt there's a policy on copying talk pages, but why bother? The only reason I can see that you'd want to is to preserve the contents (which is already done) — Kate Turner | Talk 04:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Just easier to see what people have written. I don't want to go through his history to find my past comments! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seems like you're only doing it to make trolling harassment easier. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Incorrect. However, I did do it because I dislike it when people just remove negative feedback, especially when it is regarding an ongoing issue. It makes communication very difficult, and others aren't able to see that others have been telling the user the same things. Basically I find it rude, even if technically you are allowed to do it. I mean, ever tried hunting for a particular comment in a talk history? It's hard as people don't usually write good edit summaries (if they write one at all!). Now I have the talk history, I can much more easily remember what I've written, and see what others have written also. My perogative. Netoholic would be allowed to do this also. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From IRC: 

[04:54:02] <zwitter> Netoholic: were you planning on adding links to the old versions of your talk page on the page?
[04:54:20] <Netoholic> kate yes

That's why I do as well - it's just as easy as having archive pages. — Kate Turner | Talk 04:55, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Ta - If you want to keep a copy of Net's talk page lying around (which is fully in your rights under the GFDL), then the best thing for you to do would be to copy and paste it into a subpage of yours. Our de-facto policy in the matter is that his subpages are his to do with as he pleases (within reason), and by the same token, yours are yours. →Raul654 05:00, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Protecting that page was not appropriate. I am unprotecting it. — Kate Turner | Talk 05:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
I can't even lock it because Kate won't let me - I only unprotected the page in Net's user space. You're free to put whatever you want in yours (and he is free to not have what he doesn't want in his). — Kate Turner | Talk 05:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
No problem :) — Kate Turner | Talk 05:19, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Cleanup

(Crosspost to User talk:Ta bu shi da yu and talk:Netoholic) - I have copied and pasted Netoholic's pages into Ta bu's subpages, and protected them (Ta's subpages). Netoholic can do what he likes with his subpages, and likewise for Ta. Ta can do with them what he wants. →Raul654 05:15, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

These are archive1, archive2, archive3 and archive4. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you are going to keep them protected, they have to be listed on Wikipedia:Protected page. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
You have to list them. Personally, nothing about this will make be look bad. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
I would prefer to unprotect them if we are all in agreement that they can stay where they are. — Kate Turner | Talk 05:57, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please don't leave threatening warnings on my talk page. Kindly asking goes a lot farther. -- Netoholic @ 06:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Please note: I asked Netoholic on his talk page what threats I was making, but he never responded. Unless you call clearing his talk page a "response". - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure - I think it'll be fine though :) — Kate Turner | Talk 06:49, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) (P.S. you two need to go and do something else for a few hours)

Clarification

I wasn't accusing anyone specific of anything. I do find it highly suspect however that you, as an administrator of Wikipedia no less, would defend this behavior which is so obviously a violation of the rules, both written and unspoken. It also goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and the purpose of VfD. If VfD (and indeed Wikipedia in general) is going to turn into nothing more than a popularity contest (since, after all, whoever has more friends willing to sign up, vote, and leave again wins) this will end with my resignation as an editor from Wikipedia until such issues become addressed. Reene (リニ) 09:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reminder

Have a chat to User:Jill St. Crux about Jonah 4. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible

Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to Template:In the news, I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 17:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

The Arbitration request you added comments to was opened by another user, and over different items. It's not really an open format to launch complaints. If you feel strongly, can I suggest you open a page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment? This is a separate dispute, and really needs to follow all the proper steps. I want your concerns to be heard, rather than dismissed as not part of that Arb case. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Raul654 commented on his page: ":Netoholic asked me the same thing after he told you that. And I'll tell you what I told him - there's nothing stopping you from adding to that page - arbitration evidence pages are open to everyone. →Raul654 06:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)"
To add to Raul654's comments, a bit of my own... apparently, you can add evidence there, but if you are joining the case, I can also add evidence against you, such as your actions related to my user archive sub-pages, edit wars you've participated in, and other things like repeated harrassment of me. This will be looked by the arbitration committee just the same, and they would be allowed to rule on it. I suggest we try and use other methods of resolution (even as simple as just talking) before we open this up larger than it needs to be. -- Netoholic @ 06:46, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy

Because it wasn't an Australian cyclone. It didn't belong to anyone. No one ever refers to Andrew as an American hurricane, or to the Kobe earthquake as a Japanese earthquake. A natural disaster shouldn't get such a descriptor. --Golbez 20:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Human shields

Hi, sorry for the delay in getting back to you: Christiaan 09.43 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&oldid=7420470"