Welcome!

Hello, Chuletadechancho, 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 ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Ϣere Spiel Chequers 08:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image requests and comments[edit]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look into tackling your image requests when the time permits.
p.s. Glad you like the name. --SeedFeeder (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like to be fed seed? Good for you! Not all of us can be honest about our desires... --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

irrumatio[edit]

I moved your comments from my talk page to talk of template:sex and put my response there. Zodon (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a step back[edit]

I'm going to recommend you take a step back before you get too caught up in his edit war. There are other editors involved now and some of us will be taking a look at the article. Don't end up being collatoral damage when he buries himself. Keep in mind WP:3RR when editing this article which you may or may not have violated already..there is a slew of edits here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Xidan[edit]

I have now provided at least 10 sources on Xidan, two from official government entities (the Dongcheng District People's Government has a big article on the history of Xidan). This proves that the area is indeed notable, and it definitely exists. I believe the article now proves that it should remain here, and I think it is time that we remove the AfD. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't like the sources very much and I am not convinced. One source does not prove notability. Please bother to read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I don't believe so and I will not withdraw the AfD, sorry. You have lost all credibility.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you just violated WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You know what, I am through dealing with you. You have proven to me your intentions: you are hell bent in getting this article deleted for the satisfaction of some unknown agenda.

And no, I am not the one who has lost credibility. You are the one who has proven that you have some hidden agenda that, for some reason, you do not want the world to know. Otherwise, why do you have such a vested interest in the deletion of this article, mindful of the fact that you have never edited any Chinese-related articles, AND that you are a Chilean? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda, I felt and still feel that Xidan is not notable, that I disagree with (or don't like) the rationale and sourcing for it. Nationality is irrelevant, and since when am I from Chile!? You are a very strange individual, and I am consistently amazed by your ludicrous statements. What I have and have not edited is entirely irrelevant.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in addition to government materials about Xidan (it's China we are talking about, the media is state-controlled, sorry), There is a section on Page 222 in a travel book published by the Discovery Channel on Beijing that talks about Xidan. There are now two concrete source that supports the place as a notable area in Beijing: one from China, and one from America. That would certainly attests to the area's notability, and why the AfD was not needed. If you do not believe in what I am saying, go to your nearest bookstore and find that book. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that the media is state controlled it is still independent of the subject, and it is accepted for wikipedia, this is a fact, not an argument nor my opinion. The gov't materials are bias and the book entry by your own admition is nominal, find a book with a chapter on xidan not a page or part of one. also two sources is not multiple, you need about 5.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for Allowing Passion to Turn into Overzealotry[edit]

I would like to apologize for an unfortunate lapse in good judgment on my part, and allowing passion to turn into overzealotry. However, my opinion on the fact that Xidan is notable still holds, and the mountains of sources that I have now provided proves that very point. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 reliable sources is a mountain. Your opinion is your own, my opinion is that this is not even close to an apology and whatever it is it is hardly sincere, you have been rude not overzealous.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to assume good faith. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here , off and on, under a handful of names, since 2004. I've seen at least a dozen editors like you. Been here a handful of days, get caught up in a big argument, and suddenly you've been insulted. It really doesn't matter to me, but if you get insulted and worked up and agitated by one editor, another one will do it to you. Eventually? You'll say something incivil and get blocked or banned yourself, or get on the wrong side of the wrong popular member and suddenly you're being called a sockpuppet or a troll. I don't have much reason to take up for AoT, I don't have much reason not to, but trust me when I can safely say AGF is a weapon and whenever it or CIVIL gets bandied about, it's always safest to make very, very sure you are being absolutely civil yourself. You'd be astonished at how much stuff comes back later on. My advice, you can take it or feel free to revert all I've written on your userpage, it's yours. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Sincere Apology[edit]

After pondering about the events of last week, I believe I have acted inappropriately, and I would like to apologize. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HonestReporting[edit]

I have decided to do a non-admin close of the debate. This is carried out in accordance to Wikipedia's Snowball Clause, which states that in order for the Snowball Clause to be invoked, the debate must fulfill the following criterion, as follows:

Six or more participants have supported keeping the page (9 have stated to keep)
No editor other than the nominator has opposed keeping the page or even supported another outcome, left a comment, or asked a question which could be interpreted as hesitation to support keeping the article (You are the only vote for deletion)
The process has gone on for at least a full day (The debate began on the 20th of September at 1754 hrs. Debate was closed on 21st of September at 2149 hrs)
The nominator has not added a lot of comments and is not still attempting to make his/her case. (Besides your statement of the deletion rationale, you have not said anything else.)

Thank you for your continued contribution to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Image[edit]

I have created a new image. I created the image specifically for the gang bang article, but it can be applied to a number of related articles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki-gangbang.png --SeedFeeder (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Desserts[edit]

you proded that article you need to provide a reason for the prod if you wish please take to afd then readding a prod thanksOo7565 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]