User talk:Kotra/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kotra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

User:CadenS

I have filed a Wikiquette complaint about User:CadenS. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:CadenS. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS decided to remove my notification of the Wikiquette discussion from his Talk page without actually going to the Wikiquette page to, I don't know, actually discuss anything, so I've been forced to go the WP:ANI to discuss his behavior. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If CadenS does not desist from his personal attacks, I will be forced to file an RfC on him for incivility. When I brought the matter to ANI, I had no idea, at the time, that mine is the third ANI report on him for his behavior. As his sponsor, it's your responsibility to rein him in. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will provide my comments there, at AN/I. Concerning his removal of your notification, that is entirely his prerogative. The removal of discussions on one's talk page is typically understood as meaning they have been read, nothing more. I don't understand why his failure to immediately comment on the Wikiquette report necessitated a change of venue to AN/I, but I have no objection to it, either venue seems fine to me.

Anyway, I will comment there on this issue, but I would like to mention here that as his adopter (not sponsor) I have made a concerted effort to guide him along a less combative path, but as he is his own person, I have not always been successful. -kotra (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NurseryRhyme, that comment was entirely inappropriate. Kotra has been left to monitor and assist Caden for months. Kotra volunteered to adopt a difficult editor, it is not a job, there are no obligations. Caden has made great strides in certain areas of the encyclopedia, in part due to Kotra. Please watch your civility. — Realist² 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kotra please do not feel "forced to conclude that my adoption has been insufficient", because I don't see it that way. You're a good adopter and you've helped me a great deal. Caden S (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate my help, and I hope you'll come to me for help in the future. I think a topic ban at this point is inevitable, but don't let it discourage you. I think you should take this as an opportunity to distance yourself from topics that are unpleasant for you, and continue honing your skills in areas better suited to you. For example, your edits in wrestling and playmate/penthouse pet articles is good, and these are areas that can really use help.

Also, I hope your eye is getting better. Can you play soccer again yet? -kotra (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm the one being attacked, and yet I'm the one being incivil? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

More than one side can be incivil. In fact, this tends to be fairly common in disputes. Regardless, I was not offended, so there's no need to continue this line of discussion. Thanks. -kotra (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of this guy from some months back, doing similar stuff, if I'm remembering it correctly. It seemed like he must have had something bad happen to him at some point, or maybe to someone he knows, but wouldn't elaborate. Has anyone talked with this guy about just what it is that's eating him on this subject? (I don't need any details, I just wonder if someone has talked to him.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He has talked about it on Wikipedia. As you might imagine, it was pretty personal, so I won't repeat it. But a couple of us have talked to him about it. -kotra (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. I'm just trying to decide whether to add my name to the "topic ban" stampede or to just leave it alone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Up to you. -kotra (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Discouraged

It's too late. I feel alienated by the community. A complete topic ban on all sexuality articles bans me from all Playboy and Penthouse centerfold subjects, articles that I've done a very good job on and loved. A topic ban also prevents me from any articles related to heterosexuality or traditional marriage. That leaves me with soccer and wrestling. That's not fair. It's obvious from most of the posts on ANI that I'm not welcome nor valued as an editor for Wikipedia. Caden S (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. We're still working out the details; thanks to Guyonthesubway's comment, I realized "sexuality" was too broad of a topic, and so I changed my recommendation to just LGBT-related articles. I don't think you'll be banned from articles like centerfold subjects. Anyway, I'm sorry that you feel discouraged, but try not to take it personally. People tend to forget about common respect on AN/I, but rest assured they don't think you're not welcome. If they did, they would be proposing a complete block, and nobody has suggested that. They just don't like your edits on certain articles. That's all. Hell, this sort of thing happens all the time. Benjiboi was topic banned too, as have been a lot of otherwise respected editors. Don't sweat it. -kotra (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate your reply to my out-of-place question on AN/I. The information was enough to find out that the (apparently) banned user had edited the same disputed article. Perhaps that made Ceedjee think I might be a sockpuppet. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear. I think that seems the likely answer. -kotra (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oregon

So how is Mt. Hood looking, with all the extra snow so far? Or can you even see it (not right at this second, obviously, unless they've got floodlights on it.) I saw some blurb on the Weather Channel recently that showed a blizzard going on at Multnomah Falls. Not what you expect to see in that area. And of course we're getting your storms about 2 days later. So much for "global warming". >:( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the cloud cover has blocked Mt Hood lately, but yeah, the snow was pretty heavy. Worst December snow in 40 years, apparently. I thought it was over, but we're getting more now. It's fun to see a large city totally freak out, though. -kotra (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: AIV report declined

Thank you for the message [1] on my talk page regarding your block request [2] at AIV. After reviewing the situation, I declined [3] to block 207.104.22.34 (talk · contribs) because this IP had not been sufficiently warned. When making reports to AIV, please remember criteria #3 "the user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop" ... which generally consists of four escalating levels of warnings within the current month. Recent warnings are especially important with IPs (like this anonymous editor) because they are often shared IP addresses with often-changing users. Thanks again for your help with vandalism, and feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions or issues. Thank you, Kralizec! (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! While I think strictly following that rule basically gives users four "free" vandalism edits a month, forever, I can appreciate your decline in this particular case. -kotra (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I tell you something?

I have been thinking of making a new section in the "furry fandom" article about the hate that some people express toward it and get the word of it acknowledged, but I found out to my dismay that someone has already tried it and failed, because it was deemed "not encyclopedic" and that "WikiFur", a wiki made by furries for furries, is not a reliable source.

In my despondence, I must say that this hate is happening as I speak and I cannot be sure if it is escalating. I have witnessed it and was shocked at how it has spread and how copious it seems. I have also witnessed many death threats; I am not sure if they may or may not become reality in the near future. Encyclopaedia Dramatica also has a vulgar and defamatory article on furries; I am aware that it is supposedly satirical, but it seems to fuel credence. If you were to go to YouTube.com, search for some videos concerning furries, you might find hateful comments on them. Even in other social communities such as deviantART, Second Life, Stumbleupon.com, livejournal, and others are there furry-hating spirits.

I have been told by furries that the people who hate them are furries, too, and I assume they want to get rid of the "bad furries". They even told me that the threats are facetious. But, I have also witnessed comments of antipathy on YouTube videos of anthropomorphic animals and mascots (e.g.: the fox mascot for Foxy Bingo) that are written as though for furries. Those characters are "good furries" as are most furries in the fandom, but even if I said that to the acrimonious ones, they would just say, "The only good furry is a dead furry."

Forgive me if I am being dramatic (or "butthurt" as my furry fellows call it), but will no one acknowledge (or allow anyone to acknowledge) this convoluted and deplorable spite? It may be a "cold war" presently, but it's like what Stopcyberbullying.com told me, "[O]nce third-parties are involved ... it makes no difference if the person who started this is a young seven year old doing it for a laugh. It escalates quickly and can be dangerous."

I apologize that I had to say this to you. I am concerned and confused.

ProfessorRigeli (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you've contacted me in particular, but I'll do my best to address your concerns.

Right off the bat: please don't bother trying to insert such a section in Furry fandom unless you have reliable sources to back it up. My somewhat long explanation for this (other than WP:RS) can be summed up in a few words: What you see as "hate", I see mostly as trolling.

Certainly furries are widely ridiculed, and even hated outright by some. Often though, what appears to be "hate" is actually trolling, people trying to elicit some sort of reaction from their target. A lot of people on the internet see furries as a group of people with a persecution complex, so they get in on the ridicule and flaming for some cheap entertainment and fun at furries' expense. This trolling is usually set up to look exactly like "hate", which probably accounts for at least some of the "hate" you see.

That said, sometimes people do use the trolling as a cover for real hate, and use such abuse to intimidate (as well as troll), their unrealistic goal being to "make furries go away". The proper response is this: So what?

Let me explain. This is nothing new. On the internet, furries have been the kid everyone picks on for at least eight years now. SA popularized making fun of furries at that time, and about three years later, decided the topic had been played out and declared it "old meme" (no longer funny). That was around five or six years ago. Despite the eye-rolling of old-timers at SA, harassing and laughing at furries persisted, even expanded. But here's the main reason: furries react to it. Whenever furries get upset or present themselves as victims, the "old meme" continues to be fun for griefers and trolls. It also reinforces the "persecution complex" stereotype that delights them so much. You may say here "of course that's how furries respond, it's only natural to defend oneself against unfair criticism." Ok, yes. This is true. However, consider for a moment how insanely weird the world of furry is to the average person. From inside the fandom, it looks almost normal, and even wonderful: a supportive, friendly community of openminded people whose interests harm no one. But from the outside, it looks like kid stuff perverted into adult stuff. It's weird, even a little repulsive to some. The problem is many furries fail to recognize that outsider view, and so they respond to rude criticism and ridicule with righteous indignation and defensiveness. This fuels the "persecution complex" stereotype, which leads to more ridicule.

ED is a prime example. Yes, it's "vulgur and defamatory". That's their style of humor. Some people find it funny, probably most people (like me) don't. For those that don't, the proper response is to shrug and move on to something you like. The moment you take it (and yourself) seriously enough to "take action" against it, they've just gained more fodder for ridicule.

Furries will always be weird (I mean this in the best way possible), and so will always receive some degree of ridicule. That's just the way people are, unfortunately. But here's what makes "furry-hating" a persistent, long-term internet phenomenon: furries' reactions. Unless furries put aside their righteous indignation and ignore trolling for the idiocy it is, it will continue to be an internet phenomenon.

I want to make a specific point about death threats: if you aren't a celebrity or have royally pissed off your threatener with something you personally did to them, I would be absolutely positive they're just trying to get a reaction out of you... so the only proper response would be to ignore it. You may disagree. You may think when someone makes a death threat, you should always treat it as serious and notify the authorities, just in case (or, if it's retribution you want, to punish them with a police investigation). But unless you think the threat is real, I'd strongly disagree. Escalating what you see as a "war" and they see as a "game" only expands the "game" and moves the "game" closer to a "war".

I've sort of gotten off track here. The relevant topic at hand is a proposed section in Furry fandom about "anti-furry" sentiment. From an encyclopedic perspective, such a section would need to be presented neutrally and with reliable sources. These are Wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Even finding reliable sources on the topic seems extremely difficult. But what may be of more interest to you is my NON-encyclopedic perspective: such a section would only confirm the "persecution complex" stereotype. And that, more than almost anything else, is what causes the "hate" you see. -kotra (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Furries will be weird, of course. Will that be a problem? Pittsburgh loves furries because Anthrocon gives the city's economy lots of money. To them, Anthrocon is priceless.

Also, I have witnessed a biased review of a compendium of furry literature on Amazon.com. People have replied to it, and judging by their comments, it sounds like the hate is real, or they may be the diminutive few who really are contemptuous. I do not believe it would be a joke if they replied, "Agreed. We have enough problems, already."

And, what about Antifurrycoalition.org and godhatesfurries.com Why are they up there? I have not looked at AFC, to tell you the truth, but I can infer that it is a hate group site. If you have the gall to look you will see that they have posted artwork without permission, thus violating copyright law and no one is doing anything about it. Also, if those sites are just both great, big canards (though probably not bigger than ED), why should they be up if they are to only be laughed at or just ignored? What purpose is that for them to be up there? I think it is one count on the hate being real, otherwise it is pointless. Or maybe they are up to spawn more trolls; can we not do anything about that?

Also, trolling someone to get a reaction out of them is like terrorism. In fact, if you have seen videos of haters, they are wearing balaclavas and few are brave enough to have their faces in plain view. That gives them a terrorist visage. Or wait, that is part of the trolling, is it not?

So you say ignoring the trolls will remedy this? But, if there is already a handful of furries on YouTube screaming "Troll in Hell, Trollf*gs!" as response to the trolling, how can we get them all to cease their bandying? We cannot simply make a newscast that tells them all to stop and broadcast it all over the world; that is ridiculous. It will take years and an eternity to tell them all, one by one. What can we do? There must be a way. I would love to instill peace between the fandom and the rest of the world, as well as within the fandom itself.

ProfessorRigeli (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting a bit. Yes, I acknowledge that some people hate furries. There are thousands of hate sites and bigoted book reviews on the internet, about a multitude of subjects, including furries. Finding ignorant people hating something they don't understand is incredibly easy on the internet. Just read the comments underneath any news article on the middle east, or the comments on youtube, and you'll find idiots spouting uninformed rants. But if you really want to stop hate against furries, going grassroots is the way to go. I suggest you go for one of the following (perhaps you already have):

When you see hate, explain calmly, respectfully, and reasonably why they are mistaken. Do not resort to personal attacks like "ignorant" or "closeminded" or "bigoted", no matter how ignorant, closeminded, or bigoted they sound. This takes extreme patience and a cool head.
Be open about being a furry, while simultaneously gaining the respect of non-furries (as in, becoming an example of a great person who just happens to also be furry). Your openness will get you flames from trolls, griefers, and bigots, of course. Don't let it bother you. This option takes patience as well as charisma and conscientiousness.
Ignore it. This is extremely easy and surprisingly effective. The only problem is in groups: someone inevitably takes the bait and reacts. Pre-emptive "don't feed the trolls" statements can help prevent this.

Full disclosure if you weren't aware: I'm not a furry. I've known dozens of them, and some have been my friends; I even went to Further Confusion in 2006 with some friends, but I've never been one myself (though some vandals on my userpage apparently think otherwise). Just so you know.

Anyway, this discussion now has nothing to do with Wikipedia, so that's about all I feel comfortable saying here. If you want to continue talking about it in in further depth, feel free to email me (see "E-mail this user" in the toolbox on the left side). -kotra (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what kotra is saying is that ignoring it will make it less fun, and since that's the point of it for trolls, they're more likely to give up and do something else. I am a furry, and I would second his suggestion: "So what?" It's not something that most fans seriously worry about. As hate groups go, they're pretty unaccomplished - so far I know of a total of zero hate crimes, zero cases of police brutality, and zero "furry-only" water fountains. (Come to think of it, the last one might be kinda cool.)

I've talked to these people. It's not like they don't know who furries are. They just don't care, because admitting they knew the truth would spoil the fun of making fun of us. It's kinda sad, really. But more for them than for us. As for Wikipedia, it'd probably be more productive to write about furry fandom itself than fictional hate groups created to troll furry fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would not be open about being a furry, if I was even one which I am not (only a supporter), anywhere there is a danger of being flamed.

About those vandals, kotra. How did they find you?

ProfessorRigeli (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Originally, they probably noticed my edits on Furry fandom or Furcadia and erroneously concluded I was furry. Later on, I helped fight a "Wikipedia vandalism contest" from SA's FYAD section, and a couple of them latched onto me being "furry" and "gay" (both incorrect) in their attempted defacement of my userpages and youtube account. They failed miserably, though.... -kotra (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Delinking

Unnecessary clutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CadenS (talk • contribs) 10:18, 20 January 2009

Ok, thanks. Like I said, not a big deal, but most Wikipedia editors like wikilinks, so someone may come along and re-add them sometime, just so you know. Thanks for the explanation. -kotra (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well what can I say

I don't have much of a sense of humour on here but... I thought that was a compete comedy of errors. It's amazing how you can write one thing and someone takes it another... the internets for you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Even though you don't have much of a sense of humour on here, you seem to have a sense of humor, and that's almost as good. -kotra (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Caden S

I note that you have adopted Caden S. You should be aware of his edit to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Discriminatory userboxes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 08:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing. Thank you for notifying me. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename

No, there isn't a guideline about it. It was my own discretion. Now that you and Black Kite have told me that you'll keep an eye on him though, I think I will retract my decision and leave it to another crat for review. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I see it has now been rejected by another crat, but I appreciate your retraction. -kotra (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS redux

I have blocked him for another topic-ban violation. See User_talk:CadenS. Black Kite 00:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw this, but thanks for the notification. I've commented on his talk page. I have more to say, but I'll wait until his block is over. -kotra (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

He asked for you to be notified at User_talk:CadenS#Violation_of_topic_ban. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there now. -kotra (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

I saw your comment on the Ralph Nader Talk page and agree with you and User:EagleScout18 that the quote in the Recognition section should be taken out. A user named User:Douglemeister is edit-warring it back in, without using the article Talk page. Your help would be most appreciated, I'm not quite sure how to deal with him. Thank you very much CassiasMunch (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't really care whether it was taken out or left in; as long as it was either the full quote or no quote. I don't really have a preference if it stays in or not, but I would recommend bringing the issue up on his user talk page. He seems to be an inexperienced editor, so he may not be aware of what "see talk page" means, and sending him a note explaining it may be all that is needed to come to an agreement. Best of luck to you, and if the edit warring continues, let me know and I'll try to help. -kotra (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. I warned him about the 3RR rule, which he is ignoring, so I can report him for the violation. Any help beyond that is most welcome, thank you CassiasMunch (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, he may not have violated 3RR, since the more than 3 reverts have to happen within a 24-hour period, and his appear to be more spread out. So I'm not sure how the admins will respond to the report. But I hope the dispute is resolved, in any case. -kotra (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm now concerned that User:Pennester has surfaced, with similar appearance user and talk pages, holding same position as User:Douglemeister on several of the same articles. I suspect WP:SSP. CassiasMunch (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're on to something here. Usually I'm skeptical of sockpuppet accusations, but this case seems promising. Good eye. -kotra (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -kotra --- CassiasMunch (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate all your help on this. Btw, there's a good discussion on the Ralph Nader talk page, I welcome your participation. Would be great to get a solid consensus version/article improvement, and your insights would benefit IMO CassiasMunch (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "Deletions, explained" section, I've been watching it, but my opinions on its inclusion/removal are neutral. It could be considered "recognition" mixed with "criticism", and the arguments to remove it and the arguments to keep it sort of even out for me... much as I appear to enjoy getting into wikidebates about minor content disputes, my opinion really is neutral here. Sorry.

Also, I see you're asking others to enter the discussion, like me and Bennie Noakes. You may want to hold off on that, because selectively inviting other editors could be seen as WP:Canvassing. A better way to get more eyes on a conversation is to file a request for comment or ask for more eyes from a neutral wikiproject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections. -kotra (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, just wanting others to feel welcome. In fact, I was already aware that Bennie Noakes holds a contrary position, so to show my own neutrality, inviting any/all concerned about the content. CassiasMunch (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. -kotra (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to CassiasMuch’s activity at the Ralph Nader article, you may wish to review this sockpuppet report: CassiasMunch Sockpuppet. CalBear44 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -kotra (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to the accusation of this user. think it's safe to say that a user that began editing January 30, 2009, referring to California in his user name, with familiarity of Wikipedia history and policy at this level, is a WP:SSP, possibly of User:Douglemeister. He has been canvassing many users about this and posting notices against policy. I've asked for outside admin help. Thought you should be aware of this, as well. Thanks CassiasMunch (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -kotra (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Username

Yes, I saw your post and I thank you but there's no need to apologize. Actually, my question was about dropping the "S" from my username. I left a note regarding this for the second crat on his talkpage. Caden S (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. -kotra (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

BTW, I think I've got into the habit of marking the minors, like you suggested. — Realist² 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting me know! I have a bad habit of "correcting" people for really minor editing issues and them taking it as hostility... Anyway, you didn't, which is neat. -kotra (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

QUOTED = YOU

Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to defend the article before most of the votes were given, but I won't move for an undeletion. Later, when I have more information to attribute to the article, I may rewrite it again, but in such a way that it won't be considered not-notable. Thanks for your opinions, everyone who voted! I'll keep them in mind when I write about more obscure topics on Wikipedia. -kotra 02:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

→I agree, a article entitled 'Manda has been created, this is Talz, alter-ego. She's a defined and important person to the internet world, and I believe she deserves a wiki article, especially more then a lot of people on here. Even her Co-Worker, Dr. Cat/Felorin has his own article.. Anyways, if you can find anymore information about her, please feel free to post it. If we get some good basis behind the article, they won't be able to delete it! :D I'm going to speak with Talz in-game, and see if I can find out anything else about her. :) Thanks!

--Cloudsfinalh (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Talzhemir and Dr. Cat were the first two articles I made, back in 2005/2006. Talzhemir was deleted, as you have seen, and Dr. Cat only barely survived being deleted, on two separate AfDs (1,2). However, on the second AfD, I supported its deletion because there was no legitimate reason to not include his birth name (which is still his legal name, last I checked), contrary to Dr. Cat's own desire for anonymity. Since then, I've found he doesn't care as much anymore about maintaining anonymity, but this is probably still the case for Talzhemir. When I spoke to her about it back in late 2005, she said she didn't even want "'Manda" used, much less her legal name (I thought this was odd, because she continues to use 'Manda everywhere, but I didn't press it). My point is that sooner or later someone will add her full legal name to the article (one can find it on the Internet with a little digging), and they have every right to do so. Unfortunately, Talzhemir probably won't like that... So, be aware of this. Also be aware that it's likely someone will try to delete it. Articles like this are on the cusp of notability by Wikipedia standards, and they often get deleted or kept depending on the strength of one's arguments. It's ironic, but I think Dr. Cat was kept in the second AfD due to my arguments from the first AfD; I was arguing against myself in the second AfD, in a way.

As for improving the article, I may do a bit of wikification here and there on it, but I don't have much to add, content-wise. But you may consider asking an administrator to provide to you the old deleted article I wrote, that may have some details in it you don't have now (or maybe not, if I recall correctly, it was nearly the same as you have here). Anyway, best of luck to you!

Oh, one question: why lowercase m in "'manda"? I think she usually capitalizes the M. -kotra (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. I know what you mean. If she doesn't want it created, she could contact Wikipedia to get them to put a perm delete on it. So, if it comes to that, then it does. To be honest, I don't see why people who own an internet company would really care to a huge extent if they had their real names attached to things, but to each their own. Anyways, I put a capital M, but it changed it to a lowercase, for some odd reason. :S

--Cloudsfinalh (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't actually delete articles when the subjects ask them to, unless the subject is non-notable. Instead, we try to improve it so all libelous or untrue material is removed. But I'm curious as to how it goes when you talk to her. I think I know why she cares, she wants to separate her public life from her online life for certain reasons; which is fine, but nearly impossible to maintain as anyone who's moderately famous online can attest to. But I'm just rambling.

I've renamed the article to a capital M now, since you meant to do that anyway. -kotra (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to submit further evidence backing up my claims in particular? (my only two claims were that Kjaer canvassed, and that his canvassing may have had an effect) -kotra (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if you have further evidence of the canvassing or its possible effects, or further evidence that may be useful to consider for the case. My note was just a neutral courtesy message to all editors that posted evidence to the page. Your evidence submission is accompanied by an appropriate amount of supporting links. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I don't have any further evidence, so I'll leave the page alone. -kotra (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglemeister Conclusion.

"Thejka (talk · contribs) is Likely." I don't get this. I think this is unfair and incorrect conclusion, but one that I can't defend because this investigation is closed. How can I prove that I am not a sockpuppet? What do I need to do? I don't get this. I make one edit to the Ralph Nader page and I defend it because I made the edit, and somehow I am swept up into these Sockpuppet investigations. This is not a fair assessment. Please, is there anyway to overturn this ruling? I don't know what to do, and I am beginning to hate this site because of all this. I don't understand this system, because I didn't go on do all this stuff until I got accused. I thought the checkuser would vindicate me but it didn't. I really don't know what to do. Thejka (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know for sure what methods checkusers use (they intentionally keep it vague), but keep in mind that it's not a definitive ruling, even if it was "confirmed" (which it wasn't in this case, only "likely"). It's only considered one piece of evidence among others. But if you are innocent, I would suggest politely asking the checkuser to doublecheck, or ask for clarification as to what "likely" means. Best of luck to you. -kotra (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about the oversight picture

I like your idea of having a hole or missing puzzle piece in the Wikipedia logo. I think I will go ahead and make that for the new oversight picture. I don't think the binoculars are a very good idea since it's too concrete, so thank you for your idea. -- penubag (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright I finished! Thank you for the clever idea! How do you like it?-- penubag (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey that's pretty neat! I like it, especially how the inside is textured like the outside. I wonder if the oversighters will like it though; they might think it represents deleting encyclopedic stuff, since the "globe" represents the complete, finished encyclopedia. That might be taking it too literally, though. -kotra (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adoption

I removed it to protect my good name. Your links/diffs on the adoption talk page expose my identity. I do not like that you did that to me. Furthermore, several of your remarks are NOT appreciated.

Hm. I intentionally did not mention your name there to protect your identity, instead only referring to "my adoptee". I didn't realize the diffs were a problem, but I've removed them too now. I apologize for that. As for my remarks, I don't know which you're referring to, but I'm sorry they caused a problem. I've removed the userbox from my user page now too, since someone could trace who I was talking about through my user page, if they really wanted to. I think this means the adoption is ended, if that's ok with you. I'm willing to take it up again sometime in the future, if you ever want to. Just let me know. -kotra (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how it would be possible to take up the adoption again in the future considering the damage that Cuddlyable3 has caused and continues to cause. His remarks on the adoption talk page (with two diffs that expose my identity) are personal attacks and the fact that you are unable to see that is frustrating. There is very little truth in his posts concerning me. He has twisted things and implied misleading information to other editors about me. You failed to do anything about this. I'm not happy about that and I still feel that entire post should be deleted. You very well know that he has bothered both you and I for one thing or another over the last seven months. He will never stop. It's as if he doesn't want you as my adopter or I as your adoptee. His actions show this. I've been forced to give up too much because of him. He caused me to remove "God" from my user page last spring when he basically put me under some type of "witch" trial. I had to drop out of a particular wiki project because of him and now he's caused the adoption to end. Do you think that's fair? Do you think it's fair that he's causing so much damage to my reputation in his posts on that adoption talk page? I see no fairness in any of this. I'd love to take up the adoption again but at this point I can't see how. I do thank you however for removing your diffs and your apology was appreciated, so thanks.

I'm sorry to say that I see things differently. Your own actions have caused all these things you blame on Cuddlyable3. If you do not see this then you have ignored me and everyone who has tried to help you for the past 9 months. For this reason and others, I don't think I can be a good adopter for you again in the future. If you ever have questions about Wikipedia or want editing advice, I'll still be happy to lend a hand, but I can't help with your disputes with other editors anymore. Thank you for appreciating my apology, and I hope you have a better time with others in the future. -kotra (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration

This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sig Pic

Yeah...I found that out after it became the party line and was hoping no one would notice... >_> Fun while it lasted. --Yossarian^Complaints01:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. There may be a way to rebuild the image with unicode... gimme a few minutes. -kotra (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's something: ▐☆☭▌Yossarian^Complaints

Takes quite a bit of code, doesn't look quite the same, and doesn't even work right in Safari and Opera, or really any browser that doesn't have those particular characters installed, but there you go. It was fun for me to make, at least. -kotra (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooo! Thanks so much for that. I meant to check back earlier, but I got lost in another train of thought. :P That probably is too much code, but it's really cool, regardless. I'll copy it somewhere and keep it in mind. Cheers! --Yossarian^Complaints 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

I'd like more input on Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)#Suggesting_immediate_removal_of_arrest_from_the_article_for_BLP_concerns, Talk:Rihanna#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#conerns_over_recent_domestic_violence_reports_between__Chris_Brown_and_Rihanna if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've given my input in all three places. Basically, I weakly support its inclusion in Chris Brown (entertainer) and oppose it in Rihanna. -kotra (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: it spells "A nigger" backwards. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

   * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
   * If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
   * You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. -kotra (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Piss off!!! Check this:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggina (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 February 2009

(responded on user's talk page) -kotra (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: adoptions

Hi. I've offered to adopt several people on the list. None have confirmed and I have no adoptees at this time. Mjpresson (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -kotra (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For being a nice Human (odd phrasing intended for humor). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I'm not sure what I did to deserve such an award (did I pass the gom jabbar?), but I'll try to continue being nice (and a human). -kotra (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations are necessary

Can you please help me keep tabs on the East Coast hip hop‎ article? The subject is obviously notable, but some sockpuppet account keeps adding back a bunch of original research. JBsupreme (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, but I don't really want to mess with that article, sorry. You're allowed to challenge and remove uncited content as per WP:V, but probably a lot of that is useful information (though, since it's not cited, which is true and which isn't?). So I don't have a strong opinion for or against removing that stuff. What the article needs is more citations. Anyway, I think you're handling it ok on your own (but watch out for WP:3RR). -kotra (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)