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

Sarcasm's Greatest Hits

From my old talk page: This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. Duh... This user does not suffer fools gladly... Yakuman is a Japanese legend, similar to our Santa Claus. On July 23, he visits every anime-addicted, Linux-obsessed, porn-downloading, pencil-necked geek, nerd and wussie in the country... and pimp-slaps them good and hard. Then all the good little boys and girls celebrate... This user is both edgy and cantankerous, like Dr. House without the Vicodin... I get angry when obsessive-compuslsive misanthropes try to push their weight around... I trust no one under the age of 30... I am not interested in sophistry contests with uncultured escapees from the IT department, bored college students, or manic OCD patients... An admin once tried to block me. I ate her liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti... 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

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]

It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Andyparkerson 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wikilawyering please, I'm English.

Mediation simply drags out a silly dispute longer. One problem is that Stix was chased off and has no say in any of this, so I get to do twice the work. I also don't see to have the inordinate amount of time to fight over one issue that LQ seems to have. You seem to basically agree with her on everything anyway, Andyparkerson.

If you think Wikipedia is supposed to be a bastion of sensitivity, see Crystal Gail Mangum, where the entire article raises more issues than our disputed paragraph. Good grief, its an African-American female rape accuser illustrated with a mugshot! If y'all want to dispute, go fight over that one.

The very fact that there's a dispute is evidence that there's political ramifications to the incident, which deserve coverage. Otherwise, the article is a banal hagiography anyway. We don't really need more wikilawyering over this. Let the readers read what I provided and let them make their own conclusions. Reply at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Yakuman (数え役満) 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline mediation as there is nothing to mediate. WP:WL Yakuman (数え役満) 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; then stop messing around with the article. You don't want to mediate. You don't want to come to a compromise, even though Andyparkerson attempted to do that through his recent reversions. (No, this is not a compromise, but rather a re-wording of what you put). If you can't help but edit war on the article, move on. There are over 1.7 million other articles from which you can choose. I have no idea where you get the impression wiki-lawyering is occurring, because there's none to be found here. -- tariqabjotu 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you're walking a thin line with your recent incivil comments on Talk:Nadine Gordimer. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your interpretation is entirely fair. On the article's talk page, for example, I just said I would accept Andyparkerson's current edit. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you put on the talk page, which is why I said that this is not a compromise. Compare to this and this, which are. Alternatively, compare to your versions, which are 100% equal to each other. -- tariqabjotu 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to advocate, please don't invoke admin powers while you do it. I was not uncivil and saying "you're walking a thin line" is both threat and personal attack. If you're going to bullly me, you will run the risk of losing admin privileges via arbitration or other procedure. I am determined to defend my reputation and integrity.Yakuman (数え役満) 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of that statement is killing me. I'm not advocating anything. Your incivility comes from implying that Andyparkerson is a yamnut and a sockpuppet (or at least a meatpuppet). -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]