| Revision as of 19:31, 28 May 2013 editTJ Spyke (talk | contribs)93,344 edits →When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?: Replu← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:24, 20 January 2024 edit undoUtopes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,928 edits Notification: listing of It's a Wonderful Life (that 70's show) at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| (196 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{nobots}} | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive |
|archive = User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |counter=31 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | {{archive box|auto=long}} | ||
| Line 38: | Line 40: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| ==May 2013== | |||
| == Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG) == | |||
| <!-- ] 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) --> | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for persistent ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] ] 20:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=I understand why I was blocked, and why some people don't think my edits (which never actually harmed articles, and actually improve them. And it annoyed me when a editor would revert the WHOLE edit instead of just the parts they feel were against the rules) were just beneficial to the site. I think enough time has passed that I have been able to reflect on it and change. I just want to be able to work on articles again and improve them, and will do my best not to violate the rules. I was actually working with an editor about making proposals to update the rules with common sense changes. I don't want to break any rules or be disruptive, I just want to be able to help and will do whatever I am asked to get my ban lifted. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | decline=I don't find this request particularly compelling, I think the best way forward would be if you indicated if you would be willing to abide by the conditions proposed below and them post a new unblock request. ] (]) 20:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| :Hi TJ. In the future, there are bound to be things that will annoy you again; wikipedia is big, there are people that are somewhat annoying, and a text-only medium as wikipedia is bound to provide misunderstandings that might also annoy you. You have a history of literally years of ANI threads and blocks. Your past behavior around problematic behavior and blocks have seemed to have been, ignore people who point out problems in your behaviour, and when it comes to blocks to just sit them out, and not changing anything in your behaviour. From your request here, what I read is that you say you understand you deserved it, but really you were doing the right thing. It should be obvious from your block log now that it is not. So you now say you will be doing your best not to break the rules, but you said that before, and it didn't work out. I really can't see how it is any different now, and any effective unblock request should address that. ] (]) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Although I know my edits were good and helpful, I understand that the admins in charge don't want those edits. So I would just avoid making those edits. I would try to get the community to adopt policy changes for stuff that would improve articles (and maybe stem the tide of editors leaving), but would follow the rules in place. I have improved in the past, like how I stopped engaging in edit wars (a problem I had early), so I can change and get better. I just want a chance to show I can do better, I have been a very good editor (I was one of the primary editors that got the ] article to FA status) and my only problems are that fixing redirects is frowned upon. Even though it is just plain silly to be not allowed, I will abide by it. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::As a piece of friendly advice: Just avoid changing redirects altogether. Don't "fix" them for any reason. They are obviously a weak spot in your editing history and I have very little confidence that you even understand the community rules in this area. The ] shows that you've been making changes like this several times per month even since your current block was put in place. Not all are bad, but several clearly violate ]. I don't think you have any self control when it comes to "fixing" redirects, so if you're allowed back from this third indef block, you should really resist the temptation to touch any redirects at all. -] (]) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :To the reviewing admin: If you are interested in restoring TJ Spyke's access, I'd strongly recommend that it be a conditional unblock based on a firm commitment by TJ Spyke to leave all redirects entirely alone from now on. And obviously he'd need to be monitored for a period to ensure his compliance. He's not a ''worthless'' editor by any means, but the problems he does have are utterly intractable in my opinion. The only way to control the issue would be to impose zero tolerance for his redirect "fixing" behavior. -] (]) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::What would be considered leaving all redirects alone? For example, would fixing a link from "Wrestlemania" to "WrestleMania" violate it? Or "North America Eastern Time Zone" to "Eastern Time Zone"? I.e. would I have to avoid changing any links, or what? Assuming I do get unblocked. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Any unblock would be basically under probation. You seem quite capable of finding new and novel ways to do stuff that the community either doesn't want happening, or currently doesn't want you to do. I would like to discuss with your blocking admin and ANI the following unblock conditions: | |||
| :::#You are banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year. If you would want to change <nowiki>]</nowiki> to WrestleMania, you'll use a piped link that conserves the target as in <nowiki>]</nowiki> | |||
| :::#You will observe a 1 revert rule for six months | |||
| :::#For the duration of a year, any administrator can unilaterally place you under a topic ban for ''any'' topic and any length up to six months. In case you believe that a specific topic ban isn't justified, you may request the topic ban lifted on ANI. The topic ban will remain in effect until the discussion on ANI is closed as not to uphold the topic ban. You will not request revocation of a topic ban for 30 days after any request to lift a topic ban has not been granted. If you are placed under a topic ban under this provision, and it is not subsequently revoked, a new 12 month period starts | |||
| :::#You will place these conditions at the top of your talkpage for their duration. | |||
| :::These are fairly heavy conditions, but at the moment I'm personally not comfortable with more lenient conditions. If you agree to these, the next step will be discussing them with the admin that blocked you, and further discussion on AN. ] (]) 17:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg) == | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#It's a Wonderful Life (that 70's show)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 02:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiCup 2013 March newsletter == | |||
| We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Sturmvogel_66}} (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Miyagawa}} (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Casliber}} (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April. | |||
| Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with ]. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist ] ({{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Hawkeye7}}), on the ] ({{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Cwmhiraeth}}), on the constellation ] ({{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Keilana}} and {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Casliber}}) and on the ] ({{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Cerebellum}}). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal. | |||
| Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's ]. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such ] work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms. | |||
| A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review ''only''. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on ]. Questions are welcome on ], and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from ].</small> ] (] • ]) and ] (] • ]) ] (]) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0491 --> | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for April 10== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question about cleanup process== | |||
| Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -] (]) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article). '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -] (]) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here you go: ]. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Great, cheers. -] (]) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per ], redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Misplaced Pages and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was ]. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. ], ], ], and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier).<br/>The thing is... ''I've already explained all of this to you in the past'' (see e.g. ] and ]). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already ]. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -] (]) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly '''at all'''. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Misplaced Pages and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -] (]) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually, {{diff2|550079123|this change}} to ] is full of unhelpful changes as per ]. ] 09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Misplaced Pages now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." ] 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading ]. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons ''not'' to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's ''directly'' harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves. | |||
| :::How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki> (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -] (]) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way. | |||
| ::Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN. | |||
| ::Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why or how or how helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -] (]) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Misplaced Pages changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above: | |||
| ::Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the ''real'' usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right? | |||
| ::But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Misplaced Pages should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics? | |||
| ::Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed . These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should ''never'' be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -] (]) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that . I don't think it's too much to ask that you '''completely refrain''' from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at ]. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work ''with'' you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -] (]) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed <nowiki>|Major League Baseball]]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki>? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -] (]) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was ] in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until ] (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN: | |||
| *I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial. | |||
| *Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context) | |||
| *Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically? | |||
| *If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different). | |||
| Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week: | |||
| ::*Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article ''consistency''? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)? | |||
| ::And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,... | |||
| ::*Could you explain your thought process behind changing ? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? | |||
| ::Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. | |||
| ::The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics. | |||
| ::To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we ''need'' (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -] (]) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi again TJ Spyke. | |||
| What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -] (]) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like and suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per ]. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -] (]) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiCup 2013 April newsletter == | |||
| We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Sven Manguard}} claiming for the high-importance ] and ] (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Cwmhiraeth}} claiming for a did you know of ], the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Casliber}} and second place {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant4|Sturmvogel_66}} both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100. | |||
| The next issue of '']'' is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges. | |||
| A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round ''after'' the break, but ''not'' the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on ]. Questions are welcome on ], and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from ].</small> ] (] • ]) and ] (] • ]) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0516 --> | |||
| == When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions? == | |||
| Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that ''you'' are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -] (]) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Misplaced Pages). '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == HELP Keep a Social Media War off Misplaced Pages == | |||
| There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Misplaced Pages, and negative info is being left on the ] page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Misplaced Pages. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Misplaced Pages. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it ] (]) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:24, 20 January 2024
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 30. Archives prior to February 10, 2008 (Archive 16) were compiled by Werdnabot/Shadowbot3 and can be found at the right hand side of this page. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Help
Can you help me edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_theatrical_film_production_companies to follow the same format as the distributors page, http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Theatrical_Film_Companies? It is a lot of work and I would appreciate your help.
WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were 
Ian Rose (submissions) (A), 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), 
ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) 
Casliber (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to 
Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
May 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
TJ Spyke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand why I was blocked, and why some people don't think my edits (which never actually harmed articles, and actually improve them. And it annoyed me when a editor would revert the WHOLE edit instead of just the parts they feel were against the rules) were just beneficial to the site. I think enough time has passed that I have been able to reflect on it and change. I just want to be able to work on articles again and improve them, and will do my best not to violate the rules. I was actually working with an editor about making proposals to update the rules with common sense changes. I don't want to break any rules or be disruptive, I just want to be able to help and will do whatever I am asked to get my ban lifted. TJ Spyke 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't find this request particularly compelling, I think the best way forward would be if you indicated if you would be willing to abide by the conditions proposed below and them post a new unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Hi TJ. In the future, there are bound to be things that will annoy you again; wikipedia is big, there are people that are somewhat annoying, and a text-only medium as wikipedia is bound to provide misunderstandings that might also annoy you. You have a history of literally years of ANI threads and blocks. Your past behavior around problematic behavior and blocks have seemed to have been, ignore people who point out problems in your behaviour, and when it comes to blocks to just sit them out, and not changing anything in your behaviour. From your request here, what I read is that you say you understand you deserved it, but really you were doing the right thing. It should be obvious from your block log now that it is not. So you now say you will be doing your best not to break the rules, but you said that before, and it didn't work out. I really can't see how it is any different now, and any effective unblock request should address that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although I know my edits were good and helpful, I understand that the admins in charge don't want those edits. So I would just avoid making those edits. I would try to get the community to adopt policy changes for stuff that would improve articles (and maybe stem the tide of editors leaving), but would follow the rules in place. I have improved in the past, like how I stopped engaging in edit wars (a problem I had early), so I can change and get better. I just want a chance to show I can do better, I have been a very good editor (I was one of the primary editors that got the Wii article to FA status) and my only problems are that fixing redirects is frowned upon. Even though it is just plain silly to be not allowed, I will abide by it. TJ Spyke 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- As a piece of friendly advice: Just avoid changing redirects altogether. Don't "fix" them for any reason. They are obviously a weak spot in your editing history and I have very little confidence that you even understand the community rules in this area. The edit history of your IP account shows that you've been making changes like this several times per month even since your current block was put in place. Not all are bad, but several clearly violate WP:NOTBROKEN. I don't think you have any self control when it comes to "fixing" redirects, so if you're allowed back from this third indef block, you should really resist the temptation to touch any redirects at all. -Thibbs (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although I know my edits were good and helpful, I understand that the admins in charge don't want those edits. So I would just avoid making those edits. I would try to get the community to adopt policy changes for stuff that would improve articles (and maybe stem the tide of editors leaving), but would follow the rules in place. I have improved in the past, like how I stopped engaging in edit wars (a problem I had early), so I can change and get better. I just want a chance to show I can do better, I have been a very good editor (I was one of the primary editors that got the Wii article to FA status) and my only problems are that fixing redirects is frowned upon. Even though it is just plain silly to be not allowed, I will abide by it. TJ Spyke 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- To the reviewing admin: If you are interested in restoring TJ Spyke's access, I'd strongly recommend that it be a conditional unblock based on a firm commitment by TJ Spyke to leave all redirects entirely alone from now on. And obviously he'd need to be monitored for a period to ensure his compliance. He's not a worthless editor by any means, but the problems he does have are utterly intractable in my opinion. The only way to control the issue would be to impose zero tolerance for his redirect "fixing" behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- What would be considered leaving all redirects alone? For example, would fixing a link from "Wrestlemania" to "WrestleMania" violate it? Or "North America Eastern Time Zone" to "Eastern Time Zone"? I.e. would I have to avoid changing any links, or what? Assuming I do get unblocked. TJ Spyke 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any unblock would be basically under probation. You seem quite capable of finding new and novel ways to do stuff that the community either doesn't want happening, or currently doesn't want you to do. I would like to discuss with your blocking admin and ANI the following unblock conditions:
- You are banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year. If you would want to change ] to WrestleMania, you'll use a piped link that conserves the target as in ]
- You will observe a 1 revert rule for six months
- For the duration of a year, any administrator can unilaterally place you under a topic ban for any topic and any length up to six months. In case you believe that a specific topic ban isn't justified, you may request the topic ban lifted on ANI. The topic ban will remain in effect until the discussion on ANI is closed as not to uphold the topic ban. You will not request revocation of a topic ban for 30 days after any request to lift a topic ban has not been granted. If you are placed under a topic ban under this provision, and it is not subsequently revoked, a new 12 month period starts
- You will place these conditions at the top of your talkpage for their duration.
- These are fairly heavy conditions, but at the moment I'm personally not comfortable with more lenient conditions. If you agree to these, the next step will be discussing them with the admin that blocked you, and further discussion on AN. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any unblock would be basically under probation. You seem quite capable of finding new and novel ways to do stuff that the community either doesn't want happening, or currently doesn't want you to do. I would like to discuss with your blocking admin and ANI the following unblock conditions:
- What would be considered leaving all redirects alone? For example, would fixing a link from "Wrestlemania" to "WrestleMania" violate it? Or "North America Eastern Time Zone" to "Eastern Time Zone"? I.e. would I have to avoid changing any links, or what? Assuming I do get unblocked. TJ Spyke 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:TJ Spyke/Userboxes/Abortion
User:TJ Spyke/Userboxes/Abortion, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:TJ Spyke/Userboxes/Abortion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TJ Spyke/Userboxes/Abortion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. realsanix (Hello!) 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
"It's a Wonderful Life (that 70's show)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect It's a Wonderful Life (that 70's show) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § It's a Wonderful Life (that 70's show) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)