Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:35, 30 April 2008

Euthanasia

OK. Would you also care to look at the paragraph above? It too was original research, look at it:

Others respond to this argument by pointing out that if a nondisabled person attempts suicide, all measures possible are taken to save their lives. Suicidal people are often given involuntary medical treatment so that they will not die. This argument states that it is due to societal prejudice, namely that disabled people are of lower worth and that any unhappiness must be due to the disability, which results in greater support of voluntary euthanasia by disabled people than suicide by nondisabled people.

This does not cite any reference, and what I stated is logically absolutely true as a rebuttal to this sentence. None the less I do appreciate it wasn't the correct thing to do. Will you be removing this paragraph also? It is guilty of exactly the same issue. -- Nevermind, I removed it myself. Without a credible citation then this paragraph too is original research and since it's logically inaccurate - it would seem sensible to delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.12.253 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, my friend.

Timothy Perper (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" of Tupac Shakur

How was my edit of 2pac vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bully25 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockadelic

New editor at Powers and abilities of the Hulk, could quite possibly be another sock. Check out Special:Contributions/TheJaff and see what you think. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dabs

Sess, I don't know if you are avoiding me or are too modest to ask, but it really is OK to question my edits you disagree with. I am perfectly willing to provide explanations of each and every edit I make, no matter who's asking.

In this particular case, for example, since neither Gorki nor Górki Małe (nor Górki itself) are dabs, but rather set index articles, the provisions outlined in WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages do not apply to them per WP:MOSDAB#Set index articles. Gorky, on the other hand, is a dab page, which is why I left this edit of yours, which is absolutely correct, alone. Please let me know if you think I missed or misinterpreted something here—unlike some folks I know I don't tend to claim absolute infallibility and am known to admit making mistakes every now and then. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sess! As requested, here are my thoughts. Looking at the root of the problem and at the intents of the guidelines, here is how my reasoning goes.

As per WP:MOSDAB#Set index articles, et index articles are disambiguation-like pages that do not obey the style outlined on this page ("this page" being MOSDAB). In other word, they are a cross-breed of disambiguation pages and lists. Like disambiguation pages, SIAs list entries sharing the same name, yet unlike them they only allow entries of one type (be it ships, places, rivers, or something else). Like lists and articles, SIAs need to contain referenced and verifiable information (i.e., if they lack that, they can be tagged "unreferenced"), yet unlike lists and articles, they contain content which is very limited in scope (i.e., all entries must share the same name). In any case, no matter how you look at the SIAs, one thing is crystal clear—the guidelines dealing with them at the current time are horribly insufficient.

Take, for example, your decision to link to SIAs via a redirect containing "(disambiguation)" in the redirect's title. Since SIAs are not disambiguation pages (they are merely like disambiguation pages), doing so is extremely confusing and misleading, because it mixes cleanup approaches of two different (albeit similar) concepts. Adding "(set index)" instead of "(disambiguation)" might be a better idea, but, again, if you consider that SIAs are more like lists than dab pages, what would the purpose of doing so be? WP:D recommends to link to dabs via redirects containing "(disambiguation)" in the title so people/bots cleaning up redirects in the future would know when a redirect to a dab page is intentional and when it is most likely accidental and in need to be fixed. But is it wrong to link directly to a list, even if it is "disambiguation-like"? Not necessarily, wouldn't you agree? While dab pages should only be linked to from other dab pages and from the hatnotes, not from the articles, a link to a list may pop up pretty much anywhere. This is less true of SIAs (a subset of lists), but it is still true nevertheless.

Applying WP:D provisions to SIAs is neither right or wrong; the correct approach is simply not documented. I don't have a strong opinion on how SIAs should be linked to (via a "(disambiguation)" link, via a "(set index)" link, always directly, or using some other approach), but I do believe that whatever the final approach is going to be, it needs to be proposed, discussed, and added to the guidelines. Otherwise you'll have many different people independently using many different approaches based just on their interpretation of the guidelines or personal preferences and having no common denominator allowing them to coordinate and unify their efforts.

Anyway, the bottom line: if the members of the Disambig Project start working on improving the MOSDAB part dealing with the SIAs (it is currently awfully vague and confusing), that'd probably be a better course of action than having to put out various fires popping up here and there and having nothing in the guidelines to support your position. Please let me know if this addresses your concerns or if you have further questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the Edit!

i am bothered.. i have been editing some pages in the wikipedia (but some of them are just minor edits and grammatical edits).. i know that it is mandatory for wikipedians to cite references on their edits.. but i do not know that one should have citations to really edit information (regarding the yuyu hakusho page). my mistake! i will be better and surely to cite references next time. —User:Axxand 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ACE/ACES/Aces/Ace (disambiguation)

I notice you marked a couple of these for cleanup; just to let you know there's a mini-project underway to merge these all under "Ace (disambiguation)". Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Media

I notice you remove words like "BBC series" in favour of "media" which seems less helpful. Why is this? Abtract (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Which dab(s) are you referring to? You may respond below. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure off the cuff but you have done many similar edits and you may well be right but "media" appears to me to be less useful than something more specific ... I will go back over the last few days and see if I can find examples. Abtract (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have no real means of finding it but I'm pretty sure it was a Dr Who character or episode that did read "from the BBC series Dr Who" which you changed to "from the Dr Who media". I'm not saying you are wrong but the former seems to me more helpful so I am wondering what your reasoning is? You do this sort of thing all over the place so you must know what I mean even without a specific example. Abtract (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the Late reply

Hi, I've been busy in my exams and wasn't able to contribute to wiki that much. In response to what you said here, yes AWB can change all that.  UzEE  14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi sesshomaru. How many genres must an anime have? Fullmetal Alchemist (which I am currently cleaning) has like 5 genres in contrast to InuYasha and Naruto that have 3. Thoughts? Sorry to write in your talk page, just wanted to get your attention, delete this if you want and answer in my talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New info here--Tintor2 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Saxnot

User:Saxnot has reported me and you for "vandalism and copyright violations" . This is nonsense. We have not posted any pictures, violated any copyright, nor vandolized any pages. This is the same user, who has been trying to put Tien as an alien, and vandolizing the talk page of that artcile,and has been ingaged in personal attacks against me. (and like I said, if we find out he's an alien, we put that up there). Anyway the thread is here WP:ANI. - Prede (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of this one. If he continues disruption, it won't be long until he is blocked, both the ip and the account. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok just making sure ^.^ . I replied to the thread already. Explaining how he attacked me, and has vandolized the talk page. - Prede (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That guy just won't listen and think he is the smartest guy in the world (some complex maybe?). He's got some nerves I tell ya. Also personal attack on me (calling me dumb and aggressively denied all the fact I laid in front of him), and would continue to spam the talk page of Tenshinhan article if I didn't stop the whole thing. I say we report him. SSJ 5 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Wǔxiá‎

Please add your comments regarding the decision to move the article from Wuxia to Wǔxiá. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC).‎

Dragon Ball (manga)

Just checked the peer review project page, and there are a load of suggestions on how the article can be improved. If you've already looked since the 18th April, you can delete this :P --- Krezos (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

It has been suggested to me that you were removing vandalism from the article, not in a content dispute. The way I read it, it looks like a content dispute. Vandalism requires ill intent, and those statements appeared to be well-intentioned, though misguided, attempts to improve the encyclopedia, so this appears to me a classic content dispute. However, I'd like to give you the opportunity to explain to me how it was vandalism.

If you can, then I'll remove the block and so note your block log. If you can not, however, then the block will need to remain, and I'll remove your rollback rights, since you used the rollback tool in the course of a content dispute.

I'm truly listening with an open mind and hope that you can convince me this was not a content dispute and was vandalism. - Philippe 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. The anon repeatedly inserted an unsourced statement to an already cited sentence. While probably not clear-cut vandalism, it certainly compromised the integrity of the ref.

For the majority of the time I used the undo feature (this is the reason as to why I reverted the edit in the first place): , , , , , , , , ,

Uses of rollback (last diff was the most valid): , , , , ,

Query: how does reverting original research differ than reverting vandalism? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And as far requesting protection and blocks go, I did two reports, both of which were not granted and/or seen so I kind of took it upon myself to revert the unconstructive edit, alerted a sysop (User:Caribbean H.Q.‎), and reverted twice with the undo feature before "giving up" for the night. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a long way between reverting unsourced additions (content) and reverting vandalism. Vandalism, by very definition, requires bad faith, and I don't think that's proven here. Regardless, I'm going to lift your block. You clearly thought you were acting for the good of the project, and given that, I see no reason to continue the block. I won't remove rollback, either, since you obviously used undo for most of the reverts. Getting an admin to protect the page was the right move... in the end, I unprotected it when I blocked the two of you, but I'll keep a close eye on it, and you can always ask me to protect a page as well as using RFPP. Sadly, I'm online entirely too much. I'm lifting your block as my next action. Best wishes, - Philippe 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Best bet in circumstances like this is to drop a note over the the Comics Project and someone else will usually be able to look into this and take the relevant action. If nothing else then a few more people on the case spreads the load and stops any well-meaning editor from over-stepping the line while trying to do the right thing. I can also protect a page if needed as can a few others in the project. (Emperor (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks guys. I'll kind all of this in mind from here on ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What was lifted exactly? I'm still unable to edit pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found and cleared one autoblock that was still in effect. Try editing now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that worked. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I hate autoblocks. - Philippe 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. What exactly is an autoblock? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the anon returned. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I got that one, and the later one you advised me about. It is clearly vandalism, as the ip is hopping addresses to replace non-consensus text, so I have sprotected for 72 hours (please remove the template when it expires). If it still happens after expiry please let me or Philippe know. It is better to do it this way than edit warring and running the risk of picking up a block yourself. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sesshomaru, please accept my apologies - for some reason I didn't realize that you had asked a question here. An autoblock is an option that we set when blocking someone. Essentially, it blocks any accounts from logging in from that same IP address, in an attempt to prevent folks from just hopping on again with a secondary account or something. The problem is, when we clear a block, it doesn't automatically clear an autoblock, and the tools available to admins to clear autoblocks are... unreliable at best. In this case, I didn't get the autoblock clear, so it prevented you from logging on, even when the block was lifted, because your IP address was still blocked.

Also, I second LessHeard's comment above - you should feel free to drop a note on my talk page and let me know if that guy returns. I can protect a page pretty quickly if I need to, and because I have no life, I'm usually online. :-) - Philippe 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Latin pop seems ok as she seems to be a big name in that genre. You can bring it up on the talk page if you think otherwise. Just as long as it's not an unnecessarily long list, it's ok. Spellcast (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TRL dab

Anything else to be cleaned up other than the primary topic separation and unlinking the extra bluelink in the Tomb Raider entry? Deiz talk 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The descriptions may need to be shortened, the wiktionary box should be looked into, and any periods should be removed. Other than that, it's pretty much OK. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Baykal... yet again....

Sigh... Why do I have to keep doing all the work for you? How hard was it to find this (see under #1, Intro line)?

Don't know if this is qualifies as consensus proper, but with two people supporting this wording and the rest of the world silent or indifferent, I guess it would have to do. If you take ten minutes to read through all of it, perhaps you will even understand the reasoning behind this solution (hint—we are writing an encyclopedia, so encyclopedic goals beat formalities such as MOSDAB every time). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not so much about consensus, as it is about factual correctness. Please do not mangle geographic names just because MOSDAB says you can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sess, it was not my intent to "belittle" you. Your work on cleaning the dab pages is very much appreciated. The only message I am trying to get to you is that while the dab guidelines are important for achieving consistent formatting, they should never be viewed as having a higher priority than encyclopedic content. There are very good reasons not to stick to each and every letter of MOSDAB on the Baykal dab page; I hope you'll understand what they are if you keep an open mind. I provided numerous explanations to that effect on the talk page.

As for the layout, I have no strong opinion about it; so I'm not sure why you mention it to me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Android and Boo

Actually, now that I think about it, I think because the talk page doesn't have any significant content that it should be deleted (I didn't read it over before I removed the tag, so I didn't know it was just one sentence. lol). I'll put the tag back up.--KojiDude 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I think I fixed most of the redirects, I probably missed some though. I created a lot that didn't already exsist, too. You could look at my contribs and make sure I didn't screw anything up if you like. I'd do it myself, but I'm tired as hell right now. I'll get to it tommorow.--KojiDude 05:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandal?

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I rarely check it myself. --Tom (talk - email) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that part. Done. --Tom (talk - email) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. If you feel they are malicious or against policy, you can always request a checkuser. Otherwise, I don't know what else to say. --Tom (talk - email) 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will. --Tom (talk - email) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball

Well, what I put down was based on the Remastered version of Dragon Ball Z, not the Ocean dub. In the remastered version, what I put really did happen. Maybe you still haven't seen the remastered one and thought I was referring to the Ocean dub. Jienum (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Acid

Thanks for correcting my mistake at Acid; I didn't know the link should go to Acid test (disambiguation) - and now I do! Thanks. -- Natalya 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

re User:Abtract and WP:Mediation

Hi. Following a discussion with the above editor regarding reverting your talkpage the idea of mediation between the two of you was raised. I regret that I did not follow this up, but upon coming back to their talkpage on an unrelated matter I note that Abtract is willing to consider using this service. I therefore suggest and recommend that you also consider taking up mediation, unless you believe that there is no longer any present need. Please remember that mediation is always available should there be future concerns between the two of you. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll seriously consider it if User:Abtract becomes a major problem. Until then, I don't believe it is needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please do not post any further messages on User talk:Abtract - any alleged policy violation should be reported to an independent third party (which can be me if Abtract agrees) or appropriate noticeboard. They are within their rights to request that they are not contacted there. WP:3RR does not apply in regard to an account removing messages from their talkpage; as it is removed it is assumed that the account has read the content and they are then free to do as they please, although archiving is preferred. As it appears that there is a discussion at Bleach then I don't think that mediation should be commenced until that matter is resolved, but once it is I urgently suggest that it is. I have no idea about how one goes about it, but if both parties are willing I will investigate and report back - you can then decide whether to pursue it or not. I shall copy a link to this message to Abtract, but would suggest that you both use my talkpage in regards to this matter. I would also comment that I will be absent from the computer this evening UK time, as I will be watching the Chelsea vs. Liverpool soccer match and will likely be not on best form no matter what the result, so I shall not be checking back until tomorrow my time. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Storm

I've added some quotes from various comics to the discussion at WT:COMIC to keep it all in one place. Hope it helps. Hiding T 10:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bleach

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bleach. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning yourself :) Collectonian (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Like to be fair. Reason why I haven't warned myself for my reverts at Bleach (manga) is because of the discussion I began on it's talk page. Thank you for backing me up ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)