Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-16 the remarks of Fnarf999.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-16 the remarks of Fnarf999. 1.1 Request Information 1.1.1 Update 1.2 Mediator response 1.2.1 Update 1.2.2 Mediator response to Yy-bo 1.2.3 2nd update 1.2.4 2nd response to Yy-bo 1.2.5 Personal attacks 1.3 Mediator penultimate response 1.4 Fnarf999's response to suggestions 2 Mediator's final response 2.1 Evidence 2.2 Compromise offers 2.3 Comments by others 2.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-16 the remarks of Fnarf999.

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Yy-bo 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

... matsuri , other articles.

Who's involved?

... himself

What's going on?

... he issues his emotion "terrible links", "wiped out your links". he makes statements "it does not require knowledge about an article to edit it". he states his opinion, at places where it is not asked for (TAPXYH).

• he believes he must apply policies literally, and he must police my contribution. he has misbehaved in creating a page about a few my websites.

What would you like to change about that?

... to read the wikipedia policies and guidelines, to agree to them explicitely. to agree that the misbehaved (spamming the user talk of User:Akidd_dublin AND usage of inappropriate tone for comments). he continues his inappropiate tone. to be banned for a couple of days, at least 24 hours.

• if he believes wikipedia is the right community, he can continiue to add to articles. participation in Afd takes more than his 2 months experience.
  
• he must agree to WP:NPOV, and he must refrain from issuing his opinion on articles/edits.
• he should refrain from editing articles, which he has no clue of, just to make a point (a policy is not fulfilled literally). he has repeatedly removed sections which do not suit him.
• stating his name/location on his user page is not verifyable.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

...

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case? YES

...

[edit] Update

TAPXYH, one example of his (fnarf999) judgement skills, especially "should not be here". It was the cause to file this mediation cabal. I would have blocked him for 24 hours, not just for that, but considering "wiped out", "terrible links" and the instances regards "red hair" he created on the user talk of Akidd_dublin. Yy-bo 13:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the AfD on TAPXYH:

Not an English word; it's Cyrillic! And not notable! Fnarf999 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete - This is absurd. The lettering on the bottle is not the English letters "TAPXYH". It's in Cyrillic. The transliterated version should be "Tarhun", not in all-caps. The Cyrllic letter "Ρ" is NOT THE SAME as the English letter "P" even if they look the same. And anways, it's an obscure soft drink and shouldn't be here, especially since the article contains zero information about what it is. If the article stays, though, it MUST be moved to Tarhun or something similar. Fnarf999 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the above two paragraphs were not written here, but in the AfD case against TAPXYH. The two signatures by me were made there, not here. Please DO NOT copy large sections of other pages into the MIDDLE of this case, as it makes it very difficult to follow what's happening where and when. You can't read this case anymore; you have to follow it in its history page, which is unfortunate. Note also that my case against TAPXYH is an excellent one, supported unanimously by other editors in that AfD. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

I have taken an initial look through some of the articles and talk pages in question. These are my initial impressions, which both User:Yy-bo and User:Fnarf999 are welcome to comment on (under "discussion"):

1. As regards Fnarff999's statements (assuming they are quoted correctly above), I think Fnarf999 could be more sensitive in how he conveys reasons for edits. "I wiped your links", for example, could sound a bit hostile, where "removed" is less emotive.
2. Any user, including Fnarff999, has the right to make an edit or offer an opinion without being asked. It is not necessary to have a thorough knowledge of a subject to make edits for things like spelling, grammar, wikification etc. Many users stick to subjects they know about, where others like the technical aspects of cleaning up articles, wikifying them, editing etc. Knowledge of the subject is not essential for this. So far as I am aware, there are not any restrictions on who can nominate an article for deletion. A nomination is merely a suggestion - it is then down to other users to reach a consensus on whether the article should be deleted. The creator of the article (in this case Yy-bo) is entitled to have a say in the discussion as much as anyone else.
3. I could not find any instance of spamming. Fnarff999's edits did not appear excessive on any of the articles I saw. It seemed that User:Akidd_dublin made a lot of edits on his discussion page, including deleting legitimate comments.
4. Yy-bo and Akidd Dublin's English grammar has been a point of contention. YY-bo could be more receptive to criticisms made in a constructive spirit, and be willing to be corrected when the consensus is that he is not using standard English.

I also got the impression Akidd Dublin changed usernames to Yy-bo. Can Yy-bo clarify whether that is the case?

I think it would be helpful to hear something from both users. Yy-bo, it would also help if you could highlight some specific instances where you believe Fnarff999 has acted inappropriately.

David L Rattigan 18:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

• When I refer to User:Yy-bo, I include the user's previous identity, User:Akidd_dublin

I have read the comments below by GT and Fnarf999. I have also read through some of the relevant talk pages and article histories. It seems to me there is a major problem with Yy-bo's English and his response to attempts to address the problem.

1. Yy-bo's English is generally poor quality. Fnarf999 has commented elsewhere that Yy-bo's English is classic "dictionary English" that lacks understanding of grammar and syntax. I think this is a very fair assessment.
2. Yy-bo's edits often reflect that poor English, and are being reverted for that reason.
3. Reasonable attempts by other users to address the problem have been consistently met with defiance and an unwillingness to acknowledge any error.

Wikipedia works by co-operation and consensus. Yy-bo's approach to editing does not seem in line with this. We are still waiting to hear from him, however.

[edit] Mediator response to Yy-bo

[See Yy-bo's points under "Discussion" below]

1. Yes, Yy-bo, your English is frequently "impossible to understand". This has been commented on by several users, not just Fnarf999.
2. Yy-bo, I read the page history on red hair and the edits you made were unjustified, and made nonsense of the meaning. I can only conclude that a) you were deliberately trying to be disruptive or b) you didn't understand what you were reading or writing.
3. The comments Fnarf999 and others made on your user talk page were not spam. The ones I saw were reasonable (if eventually exasperated) attempts to point out the problems with your English.
4. Yy-bo, your insistence that you have "excellent language skills" is the crux of this whole problem. I cannot comment on your skills in your native language, but your grasp of English is very poor. This has been pointed out to you several times, and you have consistently refused to be corrected or challenged on the matter.

[edit] 2nd update

I am finding it very difficult to follow this thread now, for reasons I think shed light on why there has been so much of a problem between Yy-bo and other users. Yy-bo, please do not insert your comments into the middle of other people's comments. It has disrupted the flow of the thread and made it very difficult for myself and others to follow. Please add all further comments to Discussion, not here. Cheers. David L Rattigan 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd response to Yy-bo

1. Re: Personal attacks. Yy-bo, you seem to have taken all criticism of your English as a personal attack. Saying your edits are in poor English is not a personal attack or an "accusation". However, you have consistently made it a personal issue by judging the motives and accusing those who challenge you on it.
2. You wrote:

I am sorry. For personal reason, i do not sympatize with this mediator. I appreciate the effort, but i am not able to do optimal communication. Probably this also makes me unsuitable for wikipedia, or for specific articles. I really should not edit/discuss these articles. If it makes me unsuitable for wikipedia, then i do not mind if it is explained to me (by a comitee) . However, i do not like it to be wrapped in accusations of poor language skills.

I do not understand what you mean by "for personal reason" or "I am not able to do optimal communication". Again, your poor use of English is a legitimate reason for criticism. While there are valuable contributions that Wikipedians with limited English can make to Wikipedia (as GT explained very well), the type of edits you are attempting are clearly not appropriate to your standard of English. This is not a personal reflection on you or your character; just a limitation you need to acknowledge and then work within.

You ask for a committee to explain this to you, and yet you yourself volunteered to have a committee (this committee, with myself as mediator) to resolve the situation - and you have rejected anything I have tried to do.

David L Rattigan 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Further to what I wrote above about Yy-bo's personal attacks on the motives of other posters (accusations that criticisms are simply about the user seeking a sense of importance, for example), I must point out that one or two remarks by other parties have been personal attacks, too. In particular (on this page), the "stalking" comment by Fnarf999 was inappropriate. I have no idea what Yy-bo's comment about Fnarf999's name and address was meant to imply, but given Yy-bo's track record on difficult-to-understand English, the comment was hasty and unnecessarily personal.

David L Rattigan 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator penultimate response

I think it is clear there is no substance to the specific issue with Fnarf999. Based on this review so far, it also seems clear little is to be gained by continuing to debate the issues. So far, no user has supported Yy-bo's arguments, and the consensus reveals a consistent problem with his editing and response to others' editing.

Therefore, I make the following suggestions:

1. I'll give anyone the chance to suggest a resolution or compromise to add it to the section below. (No complaints, please, just sensible suggestions for compromises).
2. Yy-bo, please take seriously the legitimate comments others have made about your use of English. There are Wikification tasks that anyone can participate in, but every user needs to recognize his limits. The consensus appears to be that your English is not of a sufficient standard to make important changes to grammar, syntax etc.
3. Fnarf999 and others: Avoid interaction with Yy-bo on user and article talk pages, as they have proved fruitless. Continue to make reasonable edits, expressing your reasons clearly in simple, non-volatile English. If conflict is still a major problem, I suggest taking this issue to the next step, which I believe is a formal mediation.

David L Rattigan 15:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fnarf999's response to suggestions

Thank you very much, David, for a well-reasoned summation. You're an excellent mediator! Your last item echoes what I have been told more than once by cooler heads than mine on this issue, and I will accept and follow it. To be honest, I hope it does go to a formal mediation or other further action, but I will not bring it myself. Thanks again. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 17:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator's final response

Thanks for all those who participated. This case is now closed, as there have been no more responses in the last few days. I will make a few suggestions for Yy-bo directly on his talk page. David L Rattigan 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

• I've been following Yy-bo/Akidd dublin ever since I noticed him a couple of weeks ago. His imperfect languge skills I can deal with. A great many contributors on the English Wikipedia have a native language other than English and their edits are valuable whether they are fluent or if they struggle to put sentences together. But it only works if you know your abilities and work inside of them. Just as I would never edit articles like Vishnu sahasranama except to fix a typo or broken link, users with impaired English skills should restrict their edits to correcting small factual inaccuracies and things of that sort. Under NO circumstances should users like him be rewriting paragraphs[1] and starting and writing entire new articles[2]. This user has been completely defiant and unwilling to cooperate or even discuss this issue in a civil way with anybody, and I am convinced that nothing short of a temporary block is going to ameliorate this situation. — GT 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to add that, this being the mediation case of Fnarf999, that this user has been more than patient with Yy-bo whose harassment (as shown in part by the creation of this case) been disruptive to the point that I'd consider his behavior trolling. — GT 19:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Over the last few weeks several editors have pointed out to Akidd dublin/Yy-bo that many of his edits are difficult to understand due to english not being his native language. Generally that wouldn't be a problem, slightly unusally phrasing or minor grammar/spelling errors are easily fixed, but Akidd dublin's edit's, while well meaning, are often at the level of being completely impossible to understand. His contributions to Static random access memory, for example, were reversed by two different editors as "unintelligible" and "poorly worded and hard to understand". Many people have pointed the problems that his difficulty with english is causing (See his talk page for some of the many comments, User:Fnarf999 was just one of many, but Akidd dublin responded by changing words in his comments[3], for which he was warned by User:Yamla). Despite many people pointing out the difficulities his edits are creating, he does not to take this into account, as his user page states, he considers that "My language usage is not erroneous." Mediation was tried , with no apparent difference, and Akidd dublin subsequently added an very unhelpful post on the villiage pump[4]. Akidd dublin also selectively archived negitive comments on his talk page, and from reading his replies, I don't think he realises how much difficultly his edits are causing. He also has a tendency to add content which is unrelated, except by very tenious links (e.g. adding a link to a film site (rottentomatos) into Red Hair, because tomato is a nickname for red hair, or to Yahoo groups, because they have red haired avatars there, as Yy-bo, added a see also for Japenese festivals to a actor article, because "it is intersting to know about matsuri"[5] Nothing which is vandalism, but quite fustrating for those trying to fix these issues as communication with him is proving very difficult, as the main issue is not his difficulty with the language, but his insistance that there is no problem. Regards, MartinRe 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have to agree with these assessments. This user has trouble with English grammar and syntax and simply refuses to admit this. Furthermore, he states on his userpage that Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss such things. This mediation wouldn't be necessary if he were simply willing to listen to critisim of his writing style, but he fervently believes that it somehow doesn't matter or that others are simply trying to gain importance by pointing out his mistakes. His language will continue to be a problem and will almost always be reverted if he's unwilling to accept the fact that it's incorrect. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'm going to keep this short unless asked to elaborate. Please see my talk page and User_talk:Akidd dublin for some of the history of this.

1. The edit I made to matsuri was perfectly appropriate. I removed a huge collection of nine external links, all to the same site, arranged in a table. It does not take any knowledge of matsuri to know that this was an excessive quantity of links. To confirm that, after Akidd dublin reverted my edit, another Wikipedia user wiped out all of the links I had and several others besides. At one point this page had FOURTEEN external links. Check the history.
2. I have not "spammed" anything. Akidd dublin has made a practice of including links to his own personal website on various topics, which is inappropriate; I think I probably did call it spamming, because it is. He's the spammer, not me.
3. Akidd dublin has no conception of how English syntax and grammar work, and has stated several times that spelling and grammar are not important. He has made DOZENS of wildly inappropriate edits and article creations, several of which I have reverted. I am far from alone in this endeavor; his edits have been reverted by DOZENS of Wikipedia editors. Almost every time he edits an article, even on the rare occasions when he has an understanding of the facts, he decreases the sense of the article dramatically. In the article SRAM for instance he has had his articles reverted (not by me) even though it meant restoring factual inaccuracies. His incomprehensibilities are widely considered to be more damaging than actual factual errors.
4. In addition to his confused English, he also makes completely nonsensical edits. For instance, see Red hair, where in rapid succession he changed the word "gay" first into the word "gaiety" and then into "Gaiety Theatre, Dublin". This is beyond simple error and into the realm of comedy.
5. He creates bad articles, which betray a lack of understanding of English usage. I believe he has a strong DICTIONARY understanding of parts of English vocabulary, but he has no idea how these words are used together in meaningful sentences. See the AfD discussions for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baking oven, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reverse charging (battery), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Light_frequency_waves.
6. When users, myself and several others, point out specific problems with his English, he becomes hostile and starts making personal attacks. My first interactions with Akidd dublin was to politely correct some of his mistakes. Since then, I have seen him leave a trail of destruction and hostility to constructive criticism across Wikipedia.
7. As a result of our ongoing dispute, I made a request for mediation myself. I agreed to stop responding to Akidd dublin anywhere except on my own talk page if he posts there. This was resolved AFTER my last edit to matsuri, which is the only example he gives. I don't know what agreements if any he made in the mediation. I suspect that filing his own mediation request was not a part it.
8. Please see User:Yamla and User:MartinRe for confirmation of these statements and more. I have LOTS of specific incidents I can show you if you don't want to wade through Akidd dublin's "contributions" yourself.
9. User:Akidd dublin is User:Yy-bo.
10. Yes, this is the short version! Fnarf999 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Good. However, they were not "my links". I was not happy with them, too. However, i refrained from removing them, as this could be considered "not asked for". Your mistake was 1: to call them "my links", 2: to comments "wiped out your links". Further, i guess you completely missed to seek talk (communication) with the others editing these sort of articles, or to show your interest by adding yourself into the list. You do not have to, but you loose a fwe points by lack of politeness. I could have removed these links months ago. However i refrained from it. Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Let us say "spam-style". I do not send un-solicited mass mail, and that's it. The "Red hair" article contained wrong data/information. I caused the removal of it. So what? Why did you write these embarrassing words to my user talk, more than once, even including links to them? Do you assume i read these articles, because your link? Do you want others to read them, coming from my user talk? I abandoned the account because of that. Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Looks harry potter style (your argumentation). Restored to a previous version. You miss something: i created this section. I rewrote it, removed the inaccuracies (which were no operational matter, just a question of style). I used a technical manual for the edit. Further, do not mind about Akidd_dublin, because this is now abandoned. What you write speaks for itself. Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Good. Before my edit, it was just wrong data, and could have been removed. I wanted to get it removed by others. Now i am even the author of the statement about cockney. And we must repeat these words a few more times just for the sake of it. It is not related to red hair, do you agree? I mean before any my edits. Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

6. And I believe you are going to try to gain importance, nothing else. The articles were not bad, they just do not belong here. There are enough baking ovens, explicitely. YOur comment speaks for itself (again). Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

7. The result of your action towards the talk/your comments on the contribution of Akidd_dublin was the descision to abandon this account. It won't be wrong for your account, if you do not like yourself connected, to, well, i call them "special population groups". Old people are such a group, children are. I found it unsuitable for me. I do not edit such articles (even if there are some here on wikipedia). A few reasons: They are not defineable in a scientific sense, and they are not recognized by the goverment. The governement has different labels for these people. However, we do not do political discussion on wikipedia. It is called disruptive. Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

8. I assume you try to gain importance. I previously made the suggestion to start a blog about yourself. This is not an offensive statement. Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

9. No. Yy-bo is Yy-bo.

• As for the question of whether my name and location are stated accurately on my user page, I am open to suggestions on how to verify them. Do you want my drivers' license photograph? Why do you care? Why is User:Yy-bo obsessed with my personal details? It SOUNDS like a demand to know my name and where I live, which sounds a bit stalker-like to me. Fnarf999 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is mis-leading. No one can verify this. If you do so, you should state your age as well. How about linking to an external (profile) page? This is up to you. Other people can get an impression of you, not just me.Yy-bo 12:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

These instances are visible from the contribution list of fnarf999. I consider it unnecessary, disturbing, and a bad example. Consider others writing comments in this style. He could acknowledge "that he made offensive edit comments", and he could generally refrain from it.

1. My new articles are not spelled in a dialect of english "which is impossible to understand".
2. Akidd_dublin (this was me) has replaced a sentence within Red_hair with non-sense. Before that the sentence was just wrong: sexual orientation has nothing to do with red hair. I have done this, with the intention someone removes it. This has happened! Another section (red-o-phile) has also been removed. This information was wrong (means it does not belong to an article).
3. In the follow up, fnarf999 wrote a lot of lines to my userpage, especially repeating embarassing words. I declare this "spam-style". There was no reason for this. It was so bad i decided to "burn down" this (my own) user account, so to speak. It would not be allowed to/ it would not be expected from me to use language that way.
4. I do not edit articles of which i do not have a clue of. Just to make a point of my excellent language skills, knowledge/long time usage experience of wikipedia style.
5. I appreciate his (fnarf999) trial to make it short (see below), and to keep it off the user discussion. Yy-bo 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do have changed since the creation of Akidd_dublin, two years ago. I refer to technical reference manual(s) about SRAM regards grammar, word usage, sentence structure etc. My recent edit (copied to discussion) is based on such data. It has never been a problem, before fnarf999 arrived. Anyway, i believe SRAM (though one of the more easier computer topics) are not made to be understood by everyone. An overview is made up from common language elements, this allows "Joe Public" to understand what SRAM are. Other sections give technical details. They are not written in the language of "Joe Public".
• Otherwise, i would like to refer to transformer (analogy), this is explained elsewhere (in the gearbox article). I find this speak over-complicated, and a blow-up, where one line is sufficient. This, so to speak, is one example of weak language within wikipedia articles. I never attacked the editors. Sometimes i am able to rewrite it. I do not know if they are native, participating in BBS or watching movies (in their private time). Thus, i am not happy with the numerous attacks of fnarf999, and a few his fellow editors (which he uses to know the way it looks like). There are numerous weak passages within wikipedia. The word usage often includes "un-words" (see microsoft guides: bad words, however, i guess you do not have them available); see technical reference manuals (which do not contain emotional/justifying words). Hence, i consider the attacks towards my writing style pointless, more a trial to gain importance. Yy-bo 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree to what GT writes about articles in foreign context. Otherwise, i do not. Superstition contained a justification, which was removed. The text float was very difficult to read. Indeed the article does include unrelated information. However this information about urban legends reads interesting. I would never come to the idea to remove it, and to call it non-sense. His comments to my edits looks like a trial to collect information nibbles (about my edit style), and to heat further harassment. My responese here is not written in weak english, or impossible to understand. See my opening argumentation, which only refers to the offensive style of fnarf999, and his excessive addition to the user talk of Akidd_dublin. My grammar knowledge is not to be discussed in this mediation cabal. I am visibly trying not to leave out words anymore. Yy-bo 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

MartinRe, what you write reads like coming from a biased position. I never included user names into my collection, and upon request i removed it quickly. I guess you get the point. I have not added the link to rottentomatoes.com, but it would make the article "Red hair" more symphatic. Your comments read like coming from the army, where every policy must be fulfilled literally. There, it is required to follow instructions, and creativity is not asked for. Same adding link to "matsuri" to "yagira": It is not wrong to understand about matsuri. It is a major japanese topic. He played a role within a movie, which is, pardon, about matsuri. You acknowledge it is not vandalism. Good. You write "communication with me is very difficult". How about this: 1. As-isness (how the things are) 2. A goal/mission statement (how things should be). Personally, i do not believe the internet communities are a clean, perfect world. I do not know how much it takes your action. This is, of course, wikipedia, and not a discussion pad for politics. I had to understand this two years ago. It helps greatly to understand the own as-isness, the own goals. It makes it possible to understand others. I do not archive negative data. I was asked not to do so. I do not do it at other places. fnarf999 also collected various contributions. He assigned unverified BBS post contribution to my user account. I do believe, he understands, this does not make sense. My suggestion to use a weblog to write about his own personality was not inappreciate. Yy-bo 12:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Yy-bo, I read the page history on red hair and the edits you made were unjustified, and made nonsense of the meaning. I can only conclude that a) you were deliberately trying to be disruptive or b) you didn't understand what you were reading or writing." David L Rattigan
  • How about the article, the way it was before my recent edit? The sections are gone. We are merely discussing about one sentence. This sentence was a candidate for removal. It was my intention to underline this sentence. Now i am accused. Hang on. It was a completely unrelated statement. Same as "red-o-phile". If it is encyclopedic, then it belongs to an extra article. Yy-bo 12:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• "The comments Fnarf999 and others made on your user talk page were not spam. The ones I saw were reasonable (if eventually exasperated) attempts to point out the problems with your English." David L Rattigan
  • They were too extensive. I have numerous evidence for articles "which are not written in good english". I refrain from attacking the editors. Yy-bo 12:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• "Yy-bo, your insistence that you have "excellent language skills" is the crux of this whole problem. I cannot comment on your skills in your native language, but your grasp of English is very poor. This has been pointed out to you several times, and you have consistently refused to be corrected or challenged on the matter."David L Rattigan
  • I do not. It looks fnarfs999 posesses excellent skills to judge other people, to edit matsuri, etc. Otherwise he would refrain from this. I assume he has excellent skills. I have corrected everything by opening up a new account. List one of my new articles, and point out "that they are written in very poor english". I have scans of book passages online, within my webspace(s). We leave it at this point. They are explicitely political. I can use them to verify my sentences. Yy-bo 12:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. For personal reason, i do not sympatize with this mediator. I appreciate the effort, but i am not able to do optimal communication. Probably this also makes me unsuitable for wikipedia, or for specific articles. I really should not edit/discuss these articles. If it makes me unsuitable for wikipedia, then i do not mind if it is explained to me (by a comitee) . However, i do not like it to be wrapped in accusations of poor language skills.

• If this statement does hurt personal feelings, it also has hurt my feelings. Most windows do break from both sides. I believe it is good to be honest, better than to have hidden feelings. I do not know where this piece of information belongs. Yy-bo 13:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)