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

Masterful job on the Neoconservative - Paleoconservative Conflict page!

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]

You sir, are freaking insane. In a good way, that is.

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]

On the other hand...

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]

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]

Yakuman, I agree that many editors are far too worried about "free" licensing issues. Nonetheless, the relatively dearth of financial resources that the foundation controls means that they have to be careful. In order to upload an image as fair use and have it stay, you need to me a compelling argument in the image's description. It is also entirely plausible to call some organizations and get their permission to release their images under the GFDL. I have used this latter method to avoid the fair use issue altogether. My advice to you right now is to go to the image talk pages and explain your rationale for each image being fair use. I don't even believe in the legitimacy of intellectual property, but unfortunately the courts do, and so do the so-called IP "owners." Good luck. DickClarkMises 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. You must see the irony here: censorship in the name of freedom. Yakuman (数え役満) 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have developed a strongly-worded rationale to challenge replaceable fair use claims. See Image:Sobran.gif#Licensing. I throw the kitchen sink at this one, as I'm pushing the issue of what counts as replaceable. Yakuman (数え役満) 08:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About this new foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy: EDP "permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project." It need be replaced if a "free" replacement "is available which will serve the same educational purpose." Clear as mud. For this document to make sense, one must believe that "almost all" living notable individuals have at least one "freely licensed" portrait available. Not so. Just the publicity rights issues involved here make this impossible. Insert standard fair use debate here. Yakuman (数え役満) 13:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop telling other users that they cannot remove warnings from their talk page. They can. There is no policy or guideline that forbids this, although one or two say that this is "frowned upon". "Frowned upon" does not mean "not allowed". (Nor must they archive such warnings.)

Please note that I am not objecting to your warning users about changing the postings of others so that these postings read differently; that is unacceptable per WP:TP and WP:TPG. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. It does not follow that I must not tell other users that they cannot remove warnings from their talk page. In the case of 3RR, it is necessary as evidence that a person knows about the rule. In this case, the person is acting on bad faith and using the deletion as a chance to attack me further, as he has done ad nauseum.

I don't like the rule myself. I had an issue about this a year ago, which is why there are disclaimers on my user page. Consensus was that warnings may be archived but not removed, even after the warner had apologized for the warning. If your friend has a problem, let him archive the warning. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman (数え役満) 02:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You state that Consensus was that warnings may be archived but not removed. That is incorrect: see Wikipedia:Removing warnings, a failed policy. I again point you to to WP:TP and WP:TPG, which do not forbid removal of warnings. Also see, for example, Wikipedia talk:User page#Blanking one's own talk page.

As for In the case of 3RR, it is necessary as evidence that a person knows about the rule, that is also incorrect. Admins have repeatedly said that removal of warnings is evidence that they have been read - see, for example, Wikipedia talk:User page#User Talk -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sufficient evidence that the warning was read is there either way. Cool. Yakuman (数え役満) 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody cares, I've updated my user page to make it cleaner and more useable. Redundant material and references to dead issues have been edited. I've also cut back on the satirical commentary, out of concern that it may be misunderstood or taken out of content. I remain, however, both edgy and cantankerous, like Dr. House without the Vicodin. :-) Yakuman (数え役満) 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuman, I've responded to you on the Talk:Nadine Gordimer page. But just so you know: Simply combining two disputed versions does not eliminate the source of the dispute in this case, since the source of the dispute is the inclusion of race, which in my (and others') view is unnecessary and not neutral. So the NPOV-section tag still needs to be on that section until that dispute is cleared up. Please discuss on the talk page.

By the way, I see that you have cleared off your talk page without archiving it. User talk pages are not owned by users, but are places where the wikipedia community can see a record of conversations, responses, and warnings about the user. While it's not required for all comments, it's a good idea to archive your talk page, which means to copy the material to a subpage. This leaves it more easily accessible for other users and administrators (and yourself) without having to track through a sometimes confusing edit history. I note that we are supposed to archive any warnings and administrator messages rather than delete them. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. --lquilter 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race is something you are born with. That's as neutral as it gets. In other words, it is a plain fact. Are people to believe that the woman was robbed by Hispanics? Asians? Swedes? You have no case to keep that tag alive. As far as talk pages go, I just had this discussion. See above. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cc:ing your response to the Nadine Gordimer talk page and responding there. --lquilter 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you started the discussion here, please carry it on here. Stop this campaign to revive a dead dispute. Do not include me in your disruptive war of words. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking is "distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.", which is all I am doing. All of my edits are enforcing our long-standing policy so I am not being disruptive. If you still think you are right about all this, feel free to report me, but I will not "cease and desist" from enforcing policy and policing policy violators. ed g2s • talk 16:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]