User talk:Izuko

Welcome!

Hello, Izuko, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 21:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Townes

Sorry to have been rather oblique on the ID talk page, but didn't want to rouse a troll. The Townes position has a home at theistic evolution where his basic idea belongs, and those holding this position now have a mention at Intelligent design#Origins of the concept, end of second paragraph. It's understandable that they're annoyed that a term they feel describes their position has been hijacked by those wanting to attack evolution, but they way they say it reinforces the point that the DI's ID is the modern definition, and what readers expect when they see the term. ...dave souza, talk 21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still think it's being wrongly used on the page, and intend to prove it. However, now I understand a bit more of the criteria being used to judge sources. I just don't like undertaking any project without knowing what the standards are. That's been one of my biggest problems here. On the other hand, I do see y'all's position with regards to this. But I'll get my evidences and sources together and present them to the editors and let things fall where they may. Izuko 21:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

swallowing a tough pill

Sorry for calling you an ass and a jerk. I lost my temper there. You were being rude, but I shouldn't name-call. Now lets play nice. Sarah crane 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break from Northrop Grumman?

(before I start, let me say that I have repeated this message for User:ViriiK)

Hi Izuko! There has been a heap of conflict over Northrop Grumman recently. I am thinking that it might help if you take a 1 week break from Northrop Grumman. Nothing terrible will happen, and it will let other editors get on with the article. When you come back your refreshed view will enhance the article. What do you think?--Commander Keane 15:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you selected the participants on one side of the debate. So, basically, we just get to sit there while spoiled little Sarah runs around and POVs the article 'till her bratty little heart's content. I guess that's what you get when you go running to teacher for backup. I'll accept this as an order to stay away, even though I believe it to be repulsive and one-sided. Silencing dissent is not a good way to ensure quality wikipages, and that's exactly what you have done. Izuko 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read Sarah's talk page as Commander Keane's advice was told to her yesterday by ThatGuyThatShow and repeated by myself. Gflor e s^Talk 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you trying to make that in any way connect to what I've been saying? Because, if you are, I'm completely missing it. He goes to her page and gives her hugs, and then tells ViriiK and I that we can't post to NG's page for a week. That's about as similar as lead and cotton candy. Is this what passes for neutrality on wikipedia? Izuko 22:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The things you find when you're not editing the Northrop Gruman site: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Sounds like fun. Izuko 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move at Case Closed

I write to you because I have read your contributions for the RfC for the name of the article Case Closed/Detective Conan (Currently archived at Talk:Case Closed/Name dispute discussions#Comments. A page move request has been made to move the page (and 11 related pages) to Detective Conan; please comment it on Talk:Case Closed#Requested Move.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retsu Unohana

Have you seen the current version of her Zanpakuto's name? I'm unsure as to why it was changed and wondering if you have any insight.--Marhawkman (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to intimidate me from making a vote. There was no need to push this here, unless you intended "nice vote there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it... or your account." Izuko (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]