Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 10 January 2007

If I've left a note on your talk page, then your talk page will be on my watchlist. You can reply there if you want.

Sockpuppetry

Well first, no, a checkuser request does not have to go through RFCU. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Checkuser_requests_made_through_other_means. Though I guess some time could be saved by simply asking you: What other accounts do you use? --Elonka 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm...i apologise about my comment regarding the "backchannels" thing. I had simply assumed RFCU was the only place ordinary wikipedians where supposed to go for Checkuser requests.

What other accounts i use is of my own concern only. I have no reason, and need not to, disclose them to anyone. --`/aksha 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have any of them been used in any of the naming-related discussions? --Elonka 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. None of them have been involved in anything at all related to TV episodes articles or related discussions. --`/aksha 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why keep them hidden? If there not being used for malicious purposes why would you have to hide them :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're not watching Elonka's talk page but one of his "socks" is plainly listed on his user creation log. Now I'll ask that you stop persisting with this inquisition. This little exchange is turning into a WP:STALK violation. File an RFCU (over the table or under the table) or leave him alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not watching Elonka's talk page, nor am I watching this but thank you for notifying me that operating sock puppets is not beyond him or her I have a pretty good idea of one of his or her sock puppets, thanks anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what that means. Read WP:SOCK for the difference between sockpuppets and abusive sockpuppets. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter character pages

Hello. I'm thinking about renaming the HxH pages, and I noticed you created some of them. Wanna help me come up with the best possible titles? The normal page naming convention would be "List of Hunter x Hunter characters" but that's not going to work here since there's Main, Minor, etc. - Peregrinefisher 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

back when i created them, i didn't know what the naming conventions are. Or rather, it didn't really occur to me we had naming conventions.

the main/minor characters should be easy. Just follow the convention and have "List of Hunter x Hunter main characters" and "List of Hunter x Hunter minor characters". It's the page with the hunters that i have no idea how to name. It's like, "List of Hunter x Hunter hunters" would be really confusing. I thought of naming it as just "Hunter Association", since the page does have information on the Hunter Association, not just the characters. What do you think? --`/aksha 10:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I'm going to look around at what other pages have done. - Peregrinefisher 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop moving pages

Misplaced Pages has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages and follow the correct procedure. --Elonka 19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cease and desist. Continued unilateral action such as this will prevent mediation from being successful. ^demon 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, demon, but shouldn't the mediation be formally rejected at this point, with more than one user placing "disagree" on the agreement section? -- Ned Scott 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that people are allowed to change their minds, up until the deadline. It is probably ^demon's hope (and mine), that everyone will agree to mediation, so that we can find a civil way to proceed. --Elonka 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all page moves have to go through Requested Moves. Even the Requested MOves page itself says that. Stop trying to be misleading Elonka. The page moves started about a month ago, and i don't know how you can call it unilateral. More than half a dozen editors have been helping with moving articles for various TV series after the initial list got posted, and even outside parties from affected Wikiprojects have helped . So far, i've only filed one Request Move proposal was filed because Lost editors made a big fuss about their articles, and it resulted in a clear consensus for move.

Mediation is supposed to fix the problem. Stop trying to use the existence of the mediation as an excuse to create an even bigger fuss Elonka. --`/aksha 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy with all these moves, please. Seek consensus from other involved editors if there are disputes. Cleaning the mess after unwanted moves is a pain in the behind and unnecessary extra work for us admins. See this as a friendly warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution list, I see way too many moves in a single day. Slow way down do a few at a time and seek feedback from other editors about it before doing any more moves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at the context before giving your "friendly warnings". We had a list of 30 odd TV series to move. Doing them one at a time is hardly excessive. Especially considering every single Wikiproject whose articles where affected where given ample warnings (~2 weeks) and time to respond. --`/aksha 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you should really have a better look at the situation before jumping to conclusions. There is consensus for these moves, and the only objections have generally been from two individuals who don't agree with WP:D or WP:NAME. These moves have been done to bring the pages in line with wikipedia guidelines, they are clearly wanted moves cleaning up the mess. There's no reason to move any of them back, and so far there have only been two individuals who have even suggested that. RM's have been done in a couple cases, and support for the moves has been a clear consensus. And even when RM's have been made, those two individuals still charactarize those as "disruptive" (even to a WP:POINT). There were many pages that needed to be moved, doing it slowly just drags out the situation. The resolution of this is for all moves to be completed, and the sooner that happens the sooner we can all move on and be done with this. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Starry night

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Don't let the criticism get to you; keep up the good work. (Radiant) 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, --`/aksha 12:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are my hero! Great job. I think I sense a future administrator...  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the other-methods-tried section, you may want to include that I asked Wikizach to recuse himself from the medcab but he basically stated that he would not. That's outside of my statement area of the RFAR so I don't want to touch it myself... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, Yaksha. Succinct summary of the issues, no inflammatory language, everything backed up by diffs. Well done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And wknight, i've added a mention of it (you asking Wikizach to recuse) into the Arb case now. --`/aksha 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ArbCom statement

There's one thing that you might want to change in your ArbCom statement. You mentioned the The Sponge Who Could Fly RM as evidence of a consensus against pre-disambiguation. The issue there wasn't really about disambiguation. The previous title included "(The Lost Episode)" as part of the name of the episode. There was some confusion initially that it was an episode of Lost. Also, you say "and that the moves where disruptive" when you mean were. –  Anþony  talk  23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

With the arbitration case now opened it would be a good idea for you to not make any more moves until the case is resolved. Thanks. Thatcher131 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's a need to stop the moves that have been going on for a month with consensus (many fulfilled Request Moves) and no complaints, then i believe the ArbCom will grant a emergency injunction. Someone has already bought up the issue as a "proposed temporary injunction", so i'm sure the ArbCom will take notice of it. Otherwise, i see no point in slowing down normal wikiprocesses just because a related ArbCom case is going. --`/aksha 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yaksha, continuing to engage in conduct contested in an Arbitration case, at the very least is very detrimental to your case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why i even bother with these anymore. For my reply, refer to this talk page section. --`/aksha 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, the issue is simplicity - you are in an arbitration about page moves, you are continuing to move pages, Thatcher131, an arbitration clerk has asked you to stop. If you do not, you may be blocked pending a more binding remedy from the Arbitration Committee. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has not issued an injunction. Elonka is entitled to her opinion in requesting one, but there's no reason to believe it will be granted. Until it is, the normal Misplaced Pages processes should prevail. That is, if Yaksha really is engaged in disruptive moves, he should be reported to AN/I and blocked under normal procedures. Elonka has already tried that, but nothing came of it since there's no evidence that the moves are actually disruptive. –  Anþony  talk  00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The sheer volume has been setting off alarms in the VCN for a while now, and jossi's assertion earlier seems to confirm that the VCN is not the only one that sees this volume of moves as disruptive. (As a tangential thought, you should read up on signature guidelines, Anþony) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when is getting a lot of work done quickly disruption? Those most familar with the case have commended Yaksha for taking on such a large project. Again, if there really is evidence of disruption, there should be no problem with taking this to the normal channels. As for my signature, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. Please elaborate on my talk page. –  Anþony  talk  03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter, is there a WP policy that says that large quantities of edits or moves are inherently disruptive? It seems that moves should be judged by their merits, not by their quantity. If edits or moves are improving wikipedia, why should they be slowed down artificially instead of getting them done? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking any high volume of anything done quickly is considered disruptive, and it's why we have the bot bit, so that programs doing such tasks can be identified so that they are not banned. If suddenly scores of pages are moved from their original place, it is inevitable that people are going to complain. If she wants to continue with the page moves I suppose I can live with that, but she would NOT be hurting things to slow down. The pages will still be there in 5-10 minutes, half an hour, or however long to move. There is no reason for the speed and it's just going to get her in trouble. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"any high volume of anything done quickly is considered disruptive" Is that from a wikipedia policy or guideline? If so which one? And if it were truly "inevitable that people are going to complain" wouldn't someone have complained about the Buffy and Angel moves? I haven't seen a single complaint other than Elonka's. I think the lack of complaints on the vast majority of the moves in question demonstrates clearly that they aren't disruptive. I doubt that many people even noticed the moves happened at all (which is about the least disruptive situation I can imagine). --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT. As well, I am complaining. Thatcher is complaining. Jossi is complaining. It is not just Elonka, as you say it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What part of POINT do you feel is applicable in this situation? It makes no mention of actions being disruptive based soley on quantity. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that it's Christmas, and many editors are not spending as much time on Misplaced Pages. Please, can we have mercy on those who have lives and don't want to (or can't) spend time on Misplaced Pages during the holidays? For example, TobyRush and Riverbend were involved in this dispute on a near daily basis, but have been on wiki-breaks since early December. Accordingly, can we please have a Christmas cease-fire?--Elonka 22:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people have complained, but none of those complaints have really been backed up by good reasons. Once again, if the moves are disruptive, then where is the {{mp4}} warning? Pressuring Yaksha to stop because you don't like it is not the same as giving real a warning because the moves are disruptive when clearly they are not. –  Anþony  talk  22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is a good reason? I think the fact that as many people have come and asked about it would be matter for concern, and I don't think requesting her to slow down hampers her in any way, so what's the issue? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages to follow a guideline isn't a bad thing. Others have been similarly moving pages including admin Radiant! (talk · contribs). This is in very good hands at RFAR where a section with the word "Injunction" has gone unused by any ArbCom members. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before, i don't see why i have to slow down just to prevent myself from setting off some bot. If my speed is causing false alarms with a bot, then it's up to the bot owner to fix the problem.

Requesting me to stop moving pages is one thing, but telling me to slow down my moving because other people (or a bot) can't keep up with my speed...is utterly absurd.

In case you don't understand, let me spell it out for you. I'm on a dail-up connection - a very slow one. It takes time, a lot of time, for a page (and then the move tab) to load. If i wait for a single page to load, then the move tab, then move the page...before going onto the next page...i'm going to be here all night. And that's not even counting the time it takes for me to put episode titles through the search engine to see if they are unique. Instead, i open a lot of move and search tabs, and let them load. This way, i can come back to wikipedia a bit later, and click on all the "move page" buttons. --`/aksha 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is neither policy nor guideline that says doing high quantities of anything is disruptive. For instance, when I closed this MFD, I engaged in a high quantity of high speed deletions, and that was not a problem either.
• The reason bots need former approval is that they run an automated process lacking human oversight, and we want to be sure that it works fine even in borderline cases. Poorly written bots have been known to disrupt quite a bunch of articles.
• WP:POINT is about people who claim that "doing X is a bad thing" and seek to prove that by doing a lot of X (e.g. demonstrating the deletion process is flawed by making a dozen spurious AFD nominations). That doesn't apply here. >Radiant< 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Typo on evidence page

Hey, Yaksha. I was reading over the arbitration evidence page, and I noticed a typo that you probably want to fix. You've got a subhead saying All page moves made to remove unneeded disambiguation where supported by consensus. I think you mean to say "...were supported by consensus. "Where" is referring to location, and changes the meaning: it could be read as saying "Where page moves are supported by consensus, they're fine" instead of "The page moves were supported by consensus". On a normal talk page a mistake like that wouldn't matter, and in an article I'd correct it myself, but I think we're not supposed to edit each other's comments.

I probably won't be able to present my own evidence till tomorrow (real life beckons), but what you and the others have put up so far looks great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah...uhh...i was defintely meaning "were supported by consensus". *sigh* i seem to do this an awful lot. Thanks for pointing it out to me, i'll go fix it right away. --`/aksha 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no biggie. The only reason I notice is that my father is a newspaper man, and would thrust articles with typos in my face and say, "What's wrong with this paragraph?" Copyediting is in my blood. That and printer's ink. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New diff for your evidence...

. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --`/aksha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter articles

Hi, I would like for us to resolve the article as soon as possible, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would continue to post so we can make the Hunter x Hunter articles as accurate as possible, in terms of both names and information. Many of the bios need to be re-written, and perhaps you could assist in it. I appreciate your consideration. --Mr. Toto 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With the article content - I will get around to working on the hxh articles eventually. I'm a bit of a chronic procastinator, and i'm also involved in a massive Arbitration case right now. So with that, and Cristmas/New Years coming up, i'm afraid my wikipedia time is spread a little thin. I've got all the hxh articles on my watchlist, so i am keeping an eye on them.

As for resolving the naming issue, if you want to press it, Misplaced Pages has plenty of places for resolving disputes or getting outside opinions. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, i really can't be bothered continuing. I've said everything i can say, and everything that other people have said in previous "professional vs. common name" debates (which believe it or not, happens a lot). HxH isn't a very known anime, and it seems like other people don't consider it a very big deal, figures...alternate namings is a widespread issue amoung anime/manga articles, since for the vast majority of anime/manga series, english versions exist primarily on the internet.

One of the principals behind all of our naming conventions is that we make things easy for the reader - we use common names, most widely used names, most recognised names...etc. I've never seen anything that talks about using names based on what's 'official' or even what's 'professional' (even the more academic areas of wikipedia tend to follow this. For example, biology articles stick to using common names over standard scientific names). In other words, the current naming guidelines support using the most widely used spellings. I see no reason why HxH needs to be an exception to it. If you've got a problem with the guideline, it's really up to you to take the inititive. --`/aksha 11:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User page

FYI, I deleted your user page after Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) created one for you. Let me know if there's something more to that. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, nothing more to it. At least, not that i'm aware of. Wonder why he did it. Just out of curiosity, what did the page have on it? --`/aksha 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was just a comment <!--please write there something about yourself-->. I can't imagine what the point was other than to provoke something. S/he is claiming that s/he was being helpful for a new editor - even though you've been here for eight months! Elonka has predictably jumped on the opportunity --- more grasping at straws . —Wknight94 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Procedural question about page moves

Hi, Yaksha. Before you file the Star Trek move requests, I wonder if you could take a look at WT:TV-NC#Procedural question. I think that it might make a difference in how the moves are received at ArbCom. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i understand. I'll go reply over there. --`/aksha 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunter likes Hunting

You are the one that has violated 3RR (your initial removal counts as a reversion) - I advise you to self revert and I will not report you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually Matthew is wrong, a first edit is not a revert. Regardless, both of you should not be edit warring, especially over something as trivial as a tag. Page protected for now. >Radiant< 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm correct, it is a revert as she is reverting the addition of the tag (liek iz it wocket science ;o!?111!!) - also you have a conflict of interest, totally inappropriate for you to protect that page, also Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#A_temporary_full-protection_is_used_for: - you will notice the last revert was by YakSha at 1:33GMT. HTH HAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)