Wikipedia's policy and structure are an anarcho-tyranny: “law without order, a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus."[1] As Thomas Fleming also noted, "a world made safe for democracy is a world in which no one dares to raise his voice for fear that mommy will put you away some place where you can be re-educated." Therefore:

• Please post discussion about a specific entry on that topic's talk page.
• I am familiar with Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, so don't bother calling them to my attention.
• If you do post on my talk page, you give me the right to add any commentary or extra headings I wish. You also waive ALL rights to complain or take action regarding any changes I make to this page.
• Please note that I am not interested in receiving canned, scripted messages without my express consent. I consider them spam. If I am worth "talking" to, I insist that you use your own words.
• I get very upset when people send me warnings, treats, accusations or insults, especially when they are false. This page is not "happy fun slander corner." DO NOT DEFAME ME. I am determined to defend my reputation and integrity. I also insist on the right to respond in kind to any post.
• Apparently, some people use talk pages to defame the named user, without giving that person the ability to delete material that may be considered libellous. Therefore, defamatory statements posted here should not be presumed true.
• I have no intention of dueling quotations from obscure policy documents, especially considering WP:IAR. Nor am I interested in sophistry contests with uncultured escapees from the IT department, bored college students, or manic OCD patients.
• I am not active in any political party or public policy organization. Please do not assume that my statements represent an agenda. I am committed to maintaining a neutral point of view in all articles I edit.
• I do not accept barnstars, "awards" or any other such puffery. They're stupid.
• An admin once tried to block me. I ate her liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
• I reserve the right to update this notice without notice. All such updates are retroactive to my registration in 2005. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission or waiver of any of my rights or remedies, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.

Those who behave like insolent IT admins will be asked to do something useful... like change the toner in my LaserJet... and to quit using my T1 for serving up unlicensed reruns of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Remember, there are starving people in Carjackistan who will gladly run my help desk for a bag of Skittles and some Gatorade. --Yakuman (数え役満)

I like this guy.

Again, welcome! DickClarkMises 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this guy can send me canned messages, but not you... or that silly perl script you call a bot.Yakuman

Happy Cute Puppy

Radio

Yakuman: Kudos to you too for knowing both the great Charles Goyette and "talk show host man" Ron Smith! I love those guys! (I never sent a personal message before to someone on Wikipedia...so hopefully you will see this...) --PHX-WIKI

I just wanted to say thank you for the excellent job you've done in keeping the Neoconservative - Paleoconservative Conflict on track. It is a fascinating subject, one that I enjoy reading up on constantly. Keep up the good work.--Son of More 07:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

611 edits to the Paleoconservatism article and 603 edits to the Pat Buchanan article? You seriously need to go outside. With your knowledge, you could cure cancer. I'll be sure to contact you if I ever start an article that needs some serious attention. Until then, keep up the good work! Floaterfluss 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with your comment, "Wikipedia's policy and administration structure is a form of anarcho-tyranny: 'law without order: a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus.'" Wikipedia could be so much better than it is. :( Wahkeenah 06:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you talk me through your scalping of Jesse White. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article required cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. See WP:STYLE. Yakuman 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Patbuchanan037.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for uploading Image:Patbuchanan037.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.[reply]

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting entries from Template:Calvinism. The consensus on the talk page is to keep the entries that you want to remove. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making Barth or RBs "Calvinst" is speculative and POV -- Calvin himself would not recognize them. Yakuman 20:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to build a consensus for that on the talk page, where we have been discussing this very issue. Currently, consensus is against you, and you are in danger of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. I will revert one more time, and if you delete again without first acheiving consensus on the talk page, I will be forced to bring your disruptive behavior to the attention of the administrators. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, my point stands. Making Barth or RBs "Calvinst" is speculative and POV. In addition, consensus does not exist, as I am not the first to point out the obvious. Finally, I have not made more than three reverts to said template, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. We are allowed, though not encouraged, to make three reverts in 24 hours, per WP:3RR. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the history of the template, I see nothing to warrant a 3RR warning. Furthermore, I don't see any "Barth consensus" on the talk page. There are two for his inclusion and two against.—Emote _{Talk Page} 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for including Barth is misrepresented. Barth has influenced some, large, traditionally Calvinistic denominations with his interpretations of Calvin. It is meant in the same sense as, if N.T. Wright's views win the day and from now on people think that Calvin really meant what N.T. Wright means. That's how dramatic Barth's re-interpretation is taken by many. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I never asked for an edit war. I did ask that you not confuse the uninitiated, a point that is apparently misunderstood. This is a simple task -- and it shouldn't be turned into a popularity contest or a voting booth. It shows the challenge of creating unrefereed articles about religious matters.

As for Barth, he could never be considered an <insert favorite noun here> of Calvinism. You seem willing to take strident measures ("protecting" the template, chopping it up, or eliminating it entirely) to protect your ability to claim otherwise. This obviously violates NPOV, since at minimum, it is a debatable point upon which Wikipedia is neutral. Even worse, leaving it in can mislead the unschooled ones astray. It would be better for such an editor that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. But at least it won't be my neck. =) Yakuman 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emote, please tell me your evaluation of what is happening on that page. You seem to have a different perception; can you explain it? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I'm not sure whether you're asking for my comments about the RB/Barth issue or the Yakuman/Flex/trolling/gaming issue. I'll assume the latter. If you review Yakuman's talk page, you will see that Flex accused him of violating consensus, engaging in "disruptive behavior," and further attempted to bully him with the threat(?) of a 3RR block. On March 26, when I looked at the history of the page in question, I found that Yakuman had made only two recent reverts. You and Flex had shown support for Barth's inclusion; Yakuman and I had opposed it. Four people splitting their votes 50-50 is not a consensus. Hence my comment to that effect. Regarding the trolling warning, I still don't understand what that was for. Originally I left it alone. But after Yakuman took offense and removed it, you reverted his changes and expressed that the warning was in fact directed at him. I removed it because (1) there was no trolling on the page, (2) it appeared to be a sort of under-the-table insult, and (3) nothing productive was going to result from it. Hope that answers your question. If not, drop me another message and I'll try again.—Emote _{Talk Page} 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there anything in particular that confused you that we could address or is this just general personal tagging? Fainites 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article has been edited and re-edited, but it reads like arcana. Make it readable. See WP:STYLE. Yakuman

The article has been under constant attack by a permenantly banned user and multiple sockpuppets for years. It's currently resting a bit and drawing breath. I'd be grateful for a little more detail on where you think it's gone wrong.Fainites 11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think the basic concepts of NLP are that difficult, although both friends and enemies have made them obscure at times. I realize there is an ongoing battle raging, which has left the article a bit technical. That's unfortunate.

My own opinions on the subject are neither with practitioners or the skeptics. I do think that "the structure of subjective experience," deserves study and NLP is one of the few areas to really take it seriously. In that vein, I would like to see a good, solid article that discusses the topic fairly is a good thing.

I am willing to help out, but the fighting over that page has gone on since I came on. I normally am thick-skinned about edit wars (see above for examples), but even here I step cautiously. So I see the problem. Maybe I should be more proactive. Yakuman 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'm not an NLPer myself and worked quite hard to try and rewrite the methods and concepts sections in plain english. Obviously not hard enough! The trouble is that NLP proponents are deep in impenetrable jargon so it can be difficult to get at the underlying concepts. Could you give us your take on how to describe the basic concepts? As for edit wars, since the banning of Headley Downs last sockpuppet, AlanBarnet, we haven't had any more trouble. Hopefully if HD comes back he can be spotted again. It was a bit grim while it lasted though. Fainites 13:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yakuman. Please understand that a free image of a living person is something that could be created. Per Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples item #8 and [2] item #3, we don't use unfree material to illustrate living (free, healthy) celebrities). Please, avoid the use of this unfree image; Let me know if you still have any doubts. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yakuman! Please, understand that Wikipedia does not used promotional material to illustrate living people unless it's freely licensed, or if we have reasons to believe it would be specially difficult to find or produce a freely licensed image of this person. I understand that you say that Image:Patbuchanan037.jpg is a promotional image and as such, has been released by the copyright holder to be used when referencing Joseph Sobran. But, for this image to be usable on Wikipedia, the copyright holder would have to agree for anyone to use this image for any purpose, including commercial use and distribution of derivative works.

Also, could you please point me to exactly which part of WP:DE do you believe characterizes my behavior?

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Fair use images can be distributed freely. If someone's intentions of using an image contradicts fair use then it is not WP's problem Some "living people" are private people who don't make many public appearances. Industry standard is that such images may be used for commercial purposes in illustration. This is one of them.

2.) Please do not use this page as a test of your ideological views about "free" content, as that is distruptive and violates policy. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You cannot cite your own statements as consensus, then try to enforce them. This is not a game. Cease and desist.Yakuman 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "fair use images". Images are not "fair use" per se. What exists is fair use of some image (in some context). Regardless of that, images used on Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia's policies. Even if the image use is completely legal, it may be against our policies. For instance, I can't post an image of myself on my user page and claim "All Rights Reserved", although it would break no law.

I'm not targeting this image. I deal with a lot of image at the same time. Please, explain what in WP:DE or WP:GAME am I violating or remove your accusations.

My "ideological views about "free" content" are pretty much the same as that of Wikipedia as a whole. Consider reading Wikipedia:Five Pillars. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than one person to get into an edit war. You have placed a 3RR on my talk page, but have ignored 81.79.150.221‎, who has persistently removed from the Peter Hitchens article material relating to his recent opinion piece on channel 4, material which is obviously relevant. Please discuss the issue of what counts as appropriate editing on the talk page rather than reflexively taking sides.

1Z 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule - you can be blocked for reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours. You will need to edit in accordance with policy in the future. Yakuman 01:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed my concerns. 1Z 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I hear you. 3RR is not really about fairness, but about freezing conflict. I have been on the receiving end of this several times myself. The trouble with edit wars is that your opponents invariably has more free time with you -- and will use it to make hos point. There's nothing a person will not do when nothing is at stake.Yakuman 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You moved Los ricos también lloran to Los Ricos También Lloran although it should not be capitalized. See, for example, how the IMDB lists this TV series as "Ricos también lloran, Los" [3]. Cheers, --FateClub 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Tim_Keller#Reformed_theologian. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you not post on my talk page. As you have demonstrated a tendency to make a WP:GAME out of editing, I don't wish to be drawn into another one of your disputes. Please stop and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. I would kindly encourage you to review WP:POINT OR WP:OWN at your earliest convenience.

You're a smart guy. Flex. I know you don't know me from anyone, but I know of a lot of intelligent people who ended up either permanently blocked or in Arbitration. They were smart people, they knew their stuff, but they didn't follow the policies, and the community got sick of dealing with them and their shenanigans. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing or if you have further concerns. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman (数え役満) 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, guess I'll use your talk page then. The image is not free media and so has to meet all the WP:FUC criteria - it fails at WP:FUC#1:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.

Never mind the fact that a picture of Bragg adds nothing to the article apart from it looks pretty. I just think that it should look pretty with a free image. I am not trying to "tear it down", just trying to maintain the five pillars. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images can be distributed freely. If someone's intentions of using an image contradicts fair use then it is not WP's problem. Some "living people" are private people who don't make many public appearances. Industry standard is that such images may be used for commercial purposes in illustration. This is one of them. If you wish to take Bragg's photo, feel free. Otherwise, this is an image that is useful and has no available free substitute. Unless you have some compelling reason to pursue this further, let's try to build the encyclopedia, shall we? Yakuman (数え役満) 11:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, was the vandalism warning necessary? I haven't vandalised anything and have tried to engage you in an adult discussion rather than just reverting a third time. I'm not viewing this as an edit war or anything; it's just policy is pretty clear that the picture shouldn't be there. It is wikipedia's responsibility that if someone uses anything from any article that they are free to use it. As far as I'm concerned that is what the policy says and so that's what has to happen. I don't agree with it and personally think that the picture could stay - but policy states otherwise and that is what we have to follow. I am building an encyclopedia - a free one that anyone can use anything from. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse other users of vandalism, especially when they are simply enforcing policy. Even if this user was in the wrong (which is isn't) he is clearly acting in good faith, as made evident by his edit summaries, and therefore by definition not vandalising. Barring exceptional circumstance, promotional photos of living celebrities used to show what they look like are considered replaceable, and are eligible for speedy deletion. I suggest you read all of WP:FU, and the recent Foundation licensing policy before commenting further on this issue. ed g2s • talk 16:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]