User talk:Shubopshadangalang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Shubopshadangalang, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Pheonix15 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of The Age of Atlantic

A tag has been placed on The Age of Atlantic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've copied my content into this article, and notified Phgao. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That's OK, thank for starting it, it was on my list to do anyhow & I just happened to get to it earlier today. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reporting User:Fernwood

Maxamegalon2000 made a great point, with great research yesterday. I did a little more, stemming from a logical point of view. Rather than copy, paste, read my points on User talk:Gromreaper#Reporting User:Fernwood. Funny enough, it is section 27. Socby19 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asia

Thanks for your work on Asia. However, I am afraid I am befuddled by your objection to the phrase "new line-up". The line-up of a band is who is in the band. If that changes, it seems to me, there is a new line-up; and this is how the phrase is used in the music press. Bands generally only change line-up one person at a time. Could you say more about what you feel is wrong with "new line-up"? Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's fair... that is a bit confusing. To me, when you say the band has a new line-up, it implies that it's an entirely different group of people, when in reality, all they did was change one member. It's more the connotation or implication there that I see as problematic, because as you say, it is literally accurate. My concern with this specific article is for people to understand that the band that is now calling itself "Asia Featuring John Payne" is a continuation of the contemporary Asia band, not a "new" band. Most of my changes in the past week have reflected that goal. This is a very confusing idea to people who may not be familiar with the band, and in my mind, one of the purposes of such an article is to concisely communicate such things in a neutral manner, and that's my motivation for that change. My impression was that the phrase "new line-up" communicated that AFJP was an entity created anew, without the history they have as part of Asia. Also, to say "Payne, Govan, and Schellen launced... with a new line-up" is confusing and almost redundant, as 3 of the 4 mentioned are part of the "line-up"; you might as well just say that they added a keyboard player instead, because that's all that means. Perhaps I am alone in this thought process, and that's ok... I don't want to edit-war about it, though I'd be interested to hear some other editors' views on this, as you and I seem to be the only ones editing this point. Perhaps this is a topic for the article's discussion page. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can return to these subtleties after the current "debate" around the page has died down! Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asia Fan Club

Just an update, AB banned me from editing till the 23rd because he said I was modrago, I was cleared of being modrago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mondrago I ain't going nowhere, I was falsy accused and falely banned. All their charges and reasons are falling apart one by one. I can't edit there. They still refuse to rebut my last comments. AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.60 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (moved comment) My man, AP here, AB banned me for one month for discussing this issue in an adult type manner. I didn't go anywhere near the article, he threw the book at me with a bunch of false chages, did you you see that? All those are debatable and half have already been explained...such as conflict of interests etc..., the sock puppets accusations and the redirects have been explained and were unintentional, but he brought it up anyway, the 3rr rule was over the edit war and those who were editing on the other side could have charge with 3rr, but I didn't go reporting it to anyone. They should have been charged with 3rr not me because the link existed there for a long time, it was removed by them not added spam by me. That was vadalism, not what I did. They're still accusing me of being Mondrago, I am not Mondrago. Some of the charges are accusing me of self promotion, when it is a non profit organisation that has nothing to do with me, it does promote that band as does the other or all official links. I made it clear "This was a classic Wiki edit war over a lnk that was there for a long time and has the relevant content that would not be included in the wiki article such as reviews and interviews... SUCH as is not limited to reviews and interviews (which we have BTW).... our exclusive Vintage ASIA photo gallery is such a thing that would not normally be included in the wiki article, I have the exclusive copyright permission to post those photos. Photos that reflect 1982 and the 2006 -2007 ASIA tours mentioned in the article, that can't be included in the article due to copyright permission of the photos. This is exclusive content that the official site does not carry ", based on that there is no way I can lose this. There was legal issue brought up by but I didn't know about wiki policy, but wiki policy also mentions the retraction of legal stuff and that I have done. You can even read my diplomacy to HU12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hu12 this is a case where an umpire knows he is wrong but doesn't want to change his call. To ban me from the talk page was the last straw. I can't go there anymore even if I signed up for a new account, it says no new users allowed. I need your help to carry the torch for us at this point as I contact the higer of Wiki. Sincerelry4.238.124.171 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) ASia P

AP. Sorry this happened to you, but as far as I can see most of these charges are accurate. I warned you many times about the way you were handling things. I defended you on the "sock puppet" idea, and that you're not "mondrago", although if you encouraged others to make edits on your behalf that may be part of that mess... and i wonder, could someone you know be "mondrago?" (maybe you don't know they are?). As for conflict of interest, that's clearly true. And if you don't see why that's a problem, then you really don't understand how Wikipedia works. I don't know what 3rr is.. can you fill me in? I believe your site is of interest, and i keep fighting for them to view it on its merits alone, but they seem to consider your behavior above all else. Several have claimed the site is "self-published material" which I can see that it appears to be... quite honestly, and to be blunt the website looks incredibly amateurish, and gives the impression of something far beneath the quality of the content you're providing. Also, it would help if the articles on the site were individual articles, so they could be individually linked and used as references. Otherwise, any use of information on the site can only be directed at the home page, and thus has no lasting effect when the home page changes. If you changed the format of the site, possibly hiring out the design, it would be taken more seriously, both here, and elsewhere. As for the battle over the link, I think it's beyond me now. I'll do what I can, but I can't put too much time into it, and I certainly don't want to risk being banned or blocked myself. Keep communicating with the higher-ups on this (and try to be brief and diplomatic when you do). Good luck. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To me sock puppet meant to make believe you are different people, there is no rule that I have to edit from the same PC, I think Modrago read I was battling here at wiki from the forum and came here on his own, when I found that out I deleted the thread. I don't know who that is. As far as how the site looks, well, I put it this way, it's your opinion I'm not offended, because I know how much more work it takes to build that, than say the AFJP page, (& others..read between the lines) I can build a site like that in a half hour to be frank, or buy a template with a generic picture in the back like so many official site have. Our slide show & loaded videos bring life to the site. The article on the main page from trump plaza is an official authorized article that management sent me to post, we also have official interviews on some of the members pages like Howe, and Carl etc, those are not self published. All of the Official news on the main page are official press releases sent out by Pilato management, so I don't understand what you mean by self published? The photos in the gallery are exclusive to the club, and authorized for me to post, this illustrates the tours mentioned in the article that can't be included. A lot of those charges referenced profanity and intentional vandalism. Vandalism means to destroy what was there, it was they removed a link that was there for a long time, that is vandalism, especially when it got removed when I rearranged the order of the links. Everyone of the charges are Bogus, half already explained, and the others are reaching. The only one that was valid was the legal issue, which wiki says can be retracted, and that I did. 3RR, I think I'm saying is right, is the warning(s) I got during the edit war, to stop undoing the previous edit, they could have got the same, but it was they that removed and vandalized a link that was there for a long time, but I didn't go look for an admimistrator to take my side and give them the warnings, this is what I should have done the moment my link was removed, hind sight is 20/20, I know. The legal issue is really not against US legislation, just really a gesture by wiki to try to free them from law suits, if you read on it explains if you must take legal action they understand it can't be stopped. Also, I went to the 3rd party opinion thread and they deleted it, not allowing another opinion, tell me that isn't a violation? Sincerely...AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.4 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
AP, all sounds reasonable, but if you present it in such run-on sentences like this to administrators, you'll have a hard to being heard out. I suggest taking the list of charges posted on the Asia discussion page, and going point by point with refuting those charges. as for "sock puppet" i don't think they were using a metaphor there, that's a specific WP policy term. and as for the website, it's not me claiming it's "self-published", I know it's not. But you must see how amateurish it looks, and how it could give that impression. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If amateur is putting creativity into a website then we are proud of that, each item over 80, on the main page was placed there by hand. No I may not have website like the official Tiger Woods site, who in this ASIA family does????? That would cost about 7 thousand dollars. I had many people write and tell me they love the site saying it is much better than a "Place Template Here" "pick color & add text below. You defended AFJP site being there and so did I, and it wasn't me criticizing the looks of that place, so that isn't the issue. I could cerate a site like that in 1-2 hours tops. As far a me going there to defend myself, I think you know I did a good job of fighting out of my corner, but I can't anymore because they limited all editing of the discussion page to grand-fathered users of wiki, so I can't even create an account. He charges me with a bunch of BS, and then cuts me off from defending myself. You think this isn't going to come back at them? You know who was right to begin with, even if I wasn't an angel in all my responses, I will be victorious in the end. 4.238.124.192 (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)AP
Ok, all I'm saying about the look of your site is that it looks like something that would be "self-published" and that's likely why they thought that. But honestly, I think the site would be better off in a blog-type setup like the AFJP site. It does look really generic, I agree, but I think there's a balance to be found there. Although the hosting on the AFJP site is very slow, besides that the site is easy to navigate, and very importantly - individual articles, such as press releases, are individually linkable. I can point a reference to [[1]], but I can't point a reference to a press release listed on your site because it's part of the main page. The ability to do this would increase your traffic and make the site far more usable. Wordpress is very easy to install on your server, and it's free, and very customizable. As for your continued efforts for the site - I really don't think there's anything else that can be done on the Asia page's discussion area. You need to take that up within the administrator areas of Wikipedia, and even though it looks like the lock has been lifted, there's nothing else you can say there, as everyone is clearly against you as a user. I've tried to argue the principle of adding the link on its own merits, as I think is valid, and I think you should argue above all from that perspective, since that's what you're seeking to begin with. Whether you're right or wrong, wasting time defending yourself in that forum only sounds, well... "defensive". The link itself has validity, and only those who are objective and unbiased can effectively argue that validity. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How is the font that much different than John Wetton official site? Never mind, not the issue, the concensus for the duration of this debate was to restore the links, they had a late rally which seemed to tie the conncensus at best. We have Bondezgodu, & Barek, has taken our side after he seen the facts and they ignored the wiki external links policy of relevant content. I have just responed on the talk page.4.238.124.228 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)AP
(moved added text by ASIA FAN CLUB from top) What happened? It says in the external links page to discuss it on the page, but they restricted talk there to certain users. I was banned until today for sockpuppet, and I was not modrago, it was proven I wasn't.
I don't know. I have no control over that. Talk shouldn't be restricted to certain users. If you're blocked, you should state your case to people who have the power to change something. Also, I don't care. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Now after today I got banned until October by KnowledgeOfSelf because of my comments there today... what did I state...the truth! Good job gettng the my space link back up. One more to go!66.19.201.49 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)AP
Ok. Just don't make the mistake of thinking I'm on your "team" - I'm just making edits that I think are reasonable, and trying to encourage appropriate discussion before those changes take place. If your fan club site is going to be reinstated, it's going to take some convincing of administrators who are clearly against you. That's a battle I'm not willing to fight.
Can you show me some kind of documentation of exactly why you were banned? No one should be banned just for making comments on a talk page (that aren't slanderous or profane) - that's ridiculous. If you really were banned for that, I'll willingly fight THAT battle just on principle alone. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is the post that got me banned, he deleted this than banned until October. They don't want people to see I was falsely banned & accused. This post was removed "They may look for a crazy reason to ban me again, lock this page again, or will ignore the issue I raised. We are waiting for a resonse HU12, why is JP's official myspace page valid in JP's wiki page, but ASIA's official my space page not valid on ASIA's wiki page, please respond. I was charged with a bunch of false charges that I responded to, "officially" falsely accused of being modrago/sockpuppet, so I was falsely banned, my link falsely banned & blacklisted with NO clear wiki policy evidence as to why it was banned & blacklisted, falsely accused of self promotion when we are an official non profit organization, falsely accused of COL, COL is Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, (the ASIA Fan club does not promote the private or commercial interests of the editor) & it is not promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Falsely accused of SPAM. I was readding a long time link that has no wiki policy justification as to why it was removed, I did not adding anything. Bondegezou broke down the wiki extenal links policy and stated the "except" clause as to why the asia fan club was rightfully listed, the same way hu12 used the "except" clause as to why the official JP myspace page should be listed on JP's wiki page. I am here talking about the facts in an adult type manner, please respond. I remind you all that locking this page for 2 months does not count or qualify this issue as an old or beaten to death one, comments were banned, or limited to grandfathered users, & IP's were banned from commenting on this issue, so this issue was suspended untill all bans were lifted.70.188.184.84 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)AP" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.201.195 (talk) That was it, he banned me for reason of trolling. I took the issue to those who banned me & my site and asked them questions in an adult manner, a month or so ago I asked that anthony appleyard for his opinion it because my request for a 3rd party opinion was also removed.

Who "banned" you? Was it Hu12? Were you banned from editing articles, or just blocked from the Asia article? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Good morning, no it was " KnowledgeOfSelf " that banned me. It appears that he did not want people to see the report that I was wrongly baned for 2 months for being modrago, as you see the report link on your page (above), the official investigation confirmed I was not modrago, and I never pretended to be anyone else, there is no rule one can't use different PC during the day, so I never sock puppeted, but I was banned for 2 months for that reason. My main IP is 70.188.184.84, that is the one banned from everything, not just the ASIA page, that is why I'm writing you from a different PC. The report says trolling. But commmon sense will tell you that it was yeaterdays deleted post I quoted above that caused the ban. If it was trolliing why not just ban me and leave the post? So he didn't want people to see that post, so he deleted the post, & knowing he couldn't ban me on that, he looked for any reason he can, reason stated "TROLLING". That anthonyappleyard post I made was on March 8, asking him to give his opinion, then yesterday I politely asked hu12 & compwhiz in a repectable manner why if no my space links are allowed, is there one on JP's wiki page, you can go there and see thats all I asked, for them to please go to the ASIA talk page and explain their reasoning.

Even if any of those are trolling which they are clearly not, why didn't I get a warning, and why was that post deleted? Evidence shows it was the post that was deleted that he did not want people to see, this is why it's off the ASIA talk page and I was banned right after that post. Thank you!66.217.145.56 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC) AP

They just banned me because they said I added spam links? Did I miss something, 66.19.204.206 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)AP
I don't know, but you've got such a stigma attached to you now, in the eyes of the administrators (right or wrong) that it's probably just as well that you stay out of the discussions. There appears to be a larger issue here of judging content vs. punishing users by blocking their requested content. That's something I'm working on trying to get answers about. Long story short - just shut up for a while. And I mean that in as nice a way as possible :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User pages and user talk pages

The correct place to leave a message for a user is on their User talk page, not their User page. As such, your message for Nakon should go on User talk:Nakon, not on User:Nakon. TML (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, thanks. i guess i clicked the wrong tab... the page was blank so i thought it was the right one. thanks for the tip.

[edit] February 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I know I've always done this. I supposed after my 8000th post, I must have missed one. Care to point out which post you're referring to? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
here and here. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And you have not made 8000 posts. Only 363. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed both. As for the number of posts referenced, see hyperbole. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
So if you have 8000 edits, then I must have.....1,000,000 :). CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If it helps you to keep score, sure. :) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFJP

Could the AFJP site be used as a citation, supporting content the Asia_(band)#Asia_Featuring_John_Payne section? Since it is a "real" official site of John Payne, I would not be opposed to its use as a citation supporting that sections data. Thoughts?--Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It could, but again, the article currently reads as though there are two simultaneous lineups of the band, so I stand by my view that it should be listed along with the other "official" website in the external links. BUT, if you make edits to make AFJP more of a "footnote" in the article, as long as it makes the situation clear to avoid confusion, and make this link edit in consistency with that, I won't "edit war" with you over it. In fact, I think that would make sense. -- Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that this split-discography idea has come to light, I don't think I can support separating it. The bands themselves are being revisionist with their history, and I think that's all the more reason this article should remain accurate and clarify the situation. Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belcourt Theatre article deletion

Per your comment at User_talk:E#Belcourt_Theatre_article_deletion, the article has been restored (not by me) to User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/BT, if you're interested. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page, with references. Hopefully it won't be deleted this time (especially without explanation or discussion) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magnification

Hi! I'm working on Hungarian Wikipedia to make Yes to a featured article (maybe my English is bad). Can you tell me, who made the artwork of Magnification? I didn't find it on the Internet. Thank you. Diaby talk 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do happen to know this! it was done mostly by a computer animator named Bob Cesca. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Diaby talk 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Johns.

The charts should only contain performances hindering on public voting. All pre-LIVE performances (aka initial Audition, Hollywood week, etc.) should not be including, because it throws off the balance of the chart in comparison to the other contestants. I included his Bohemian Rhapsody performance (which in my opinion was one of the finest this season, don't get me wrong) in the section above the chart and we could expand on the specific comments of it and how it was raved up the wazoo, he got an instant pass, etc. But the chart looks more structured without the excess.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's your view of it, and if there's a consensus among editors then of course I'll go along with that. But as I said before on the talk page, if that's the intention of the chart, then you need to change the chart title or description so it's clear that you're limiting the information within. It's simply not accurate for a chart titled "American Idol performances" to leave out certain performances based on unexplained criteria. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I gave the chart a better description. But the fact is that Michael's audition and subsequent Hollywood audition were only AUDITIONS. They are not performances on the same level as the ones he sang live or pre-taped (first two weeks of the Top 24 were done a few days prior to airing). He sang those songs months before the show even began and they edited out the majority of his performance (as they did with most of the auditions). That's what the charts should reflect--the ones where they actually had impact on his chances. But I don't mind compromising a bit. Your chart specification was a fine idea =).--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Auditions or not, they were certainly "performances" on "American Idol". --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who

"He fathers a daughter in the episode". Really? I have just watched it again, and saw nobody resembling a wife, partner or concubine, let alone any hint of sexual intercourse. and even if he had, she grew up bloody quickly. --Rodhullandemu 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then watch it again and/or rethink how you're defining "father" as a verb... he explains that within the first couple minutes. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the apostrophe position

Sorry for reverting your changes to Mother's Day and Father's Day, but there is lot of evidence that this is the preferred spelling on english, independently of whether it makes sense or not, see the links at Talk:Mother's_Day#Mother.27s_Day_or_Mothers_Day.3F. I suppose that there might be some country where the other spelling is preferred, and we can report that on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize :) but please see my response to that forum. I still stand by the idea that it's an error, whether commonly used or not. Perhaps in the end I'll be overruled here, but I must make an attempt to correct this while I believe it to be in error. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Aside for my admiration for your ability to think things through and apply sound logic in general, I liked what you said here[2] regarding Winters as VP before he was President. It's completely speculative, but I like it as an explanation of how someone who wasn't yet President was flying around in Air Force One. That was sticking out like a sore thumb to me! Kudos for keeping your thoughts out-of-the-box. ;) Mael-Num (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's really no way to know, and I think it's ridiculous how several editors are posturing over this, and using speculation to defend against what they themselves call speculation. Anyway, the VP probably wouldn't be flying in AF1, but in a time of crisis, who knows? The President himself may be hiding in a bunker in Utah. There could be any number of reasons that he would be representing the country. Maybe his official capacity is as Speaker of the House or something, but if he's trying to throw his weight around, and he's recently been elected, of course he would throw the "President-elect" title around. Again, obviously we need to stick to the facts, but I think it's possible to narrow down the year with a bit more research, and to demonstrate it with reliable sources so that it's unquestionable, like the bit about the time of year (that you originally pointed out... I hadn't considered that before, myself... I'm just championing your idea because I think it's valid... certainly don't want to take "credit" for that by any means). Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please do not suggest that you are being ganged up on. You simply hold a minority (and wrong) opinion. Suggesting that others are acting maliciously is a personal attack and incivil. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't mean that to have that kind of connotation. I simply meant it as a synonym for "outnumbered". I apologize if you were offended, or if this phrase has an implied intent in other contexts. Also, it's worth noting, that comment was posted on another user's talk page, and was not intended as part of the discussion proper. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 07:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that the user whose talk page the "ganged up" comment was placed, was the original editor who introduced the whole "President-elect" argument in the first place. I jumped in later to defend the notion, and at this point at which I was being "frighteningly outnumbered" (which I don't see, from my perspective, as being different than "ganged up on") I made an attempt to suggest that this editor chime in on the discussion once again. I don't see that as being the least bit unreasonable. I do find it a bit peculiar, though that you were so closely monitoring another user's talk page, and a discussion which did not directly involve you to begin with ;) Also, I reject your comment that I'm "wrong" in the argument, especially as this is MY talk page. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Talkpages are public record. I have yours and his talkpage on my watchlist, and automatically see such changes. Your comments on talkpages are not private, and I am perfectly entitled to interact with them or with any discussion I so choose.
  • "I reject your comment that I'm "wrong" in the argument, especially as this is MY talk page." What does your last clause mean? Do you mean, if you were on my talkpage you would accept that you're wrong? Go ahead! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha. You really need me to explain that one too? Ok. All I'm saying is: "Don't think I'm going to stand for a pointless jab at me on my own talk page. I'll be diplomatic on article talk pages, but not necessarily so here." Thanks for the obvious explanation of what talkpages are for, though. (I don't see why being condescending accomplishes anything.) I never said they were "private." Just pointing out that it's not really relevant. And I reserve the right to find something peculiar if I, well... find it peculiar. Anyway, you clearly misunderstood what I meant by "ganged up" and I've already pretty much concceded to let the "president-elect" thing go, so, go away. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as "on my own talkpage" and "I'll be diplomatic on article talk pages, but not necessarily so here" show that you clearly don't understand that you don't own your talkpage. You are expected to behave here as you would elsewhere. Showing different standards of behaviour on what you consider your own territory is fine, as long as considering it your own is correct. In this case, it is not. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. I understand it. In this one isolated context, I just don't care. Now, please go find someone else towards whom to be unnecessarily snide and condescending. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 08:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I never thought that you were intentionally choosing to break the rules. Silly of me! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 09:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)