|
——————————————— Archive, May 2008 ———————————————
Template:List of Anime Ep TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible for you to withdraw this? -- Cat chi? 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jack_Merridew - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't contact you about this, I was hoping to catch you on IRC. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts and I'm more than happy to discuss your concerns either here or privately. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discuss what exactly? My opinion had been most consistent on this matter for the past three years. You did not even bother notifying me of this. What am I supposed to make out of this?
- Will I be accused of disruption if I file an RFAR against him? Although the conclusion of the last one was rather solid: [1]. Will I be accused of disruption for getting stalked by him? He has developed many very cunning ways over the years...
- In no way will I make any effort whatsoever to avoid him. In no way will I agree on anything concerning Davenbelle. I will not be inconvenienced the slightest bit for Davenbelle anymore. If there is anyone that will be inconvenienced will be Davenbelle. In addition the entire community will need to baby sit his current account (Jack Merridew) and all possible sockpuppets. Community seeking to unblock him should do so knowing this. Enough is enough.
- -- Cat chi? 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not avoiding. Know the old wive's tale about cats and babies? (sigh) Shenme (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the one accused of stalking someone for three years. Stop treating me like a criminal. I am required to notify all non-indef blocked parties in any arbitration case or clarification. -- Cat chi? 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a speedy deletion criteria? Why the martial law? -- Cat chi? 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you are willing to discuss in the light of speedy deletion criteria, I plan to recreate that redirect (I may get it undeleted). It is quite a pain to type "Stereotek"... -- Cat chi? 16:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I said to hbdragon88 above, there should be nothing but cases (and administrative pages like completed requests) as subpages of the main requests page. I remind you that no arbitrator has agreed with your renaming suggestion, for a variety of different reasons. --bainer (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not heard a single word in relation to the speedy deletion criteria from you. I care not what arbitrators has to say. I have not proposed this to them and I do not intend to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Cat chi? 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I suppose this is your home wiki. Please apply for bot status on vec.wiki here: vec:Wikipedia:Bot/Elezsion. Cheers! LV (admin on vec) --LV~El me diga, sior 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your bot account has been blocked on vec.wiki for flooding the recent changes page. Please apply for a bot flag as soon as possible. Semolo75 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean??? I thought your bot was called vec:User:Computer. --LV~El me diga, sior 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For your kindness in notifying me, I owe you an explanation.
- Firstly I apologize for running the bot without requesting a flag. Although it is rather embarrassing to admit it, despite having my list. I had completely forgotten about requesting a bot flag on a number of wikis (all entries with a NR next to them).
- As for the other point, I name my bot "WOPR" temporarily until I learn the word for "Computer" on the local wiki. In the case of vec wiki that was an error in my copy paste. I overlooked "vec" on my list.
- -- Cat chi? 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, I saw that after a few minutes you correctd WOPR to Computer, so that's not a problem. But I am a bot owner myself, and I don't think it's a good idea to use all those different names, it's not suprising that you do errors like that. I really can't imagine how you can manage such a large number of accounts working this way... :-( Bye. LV~El me diga, sior 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I try to honor every individual local language in my own way. You are right maintaining such different names especialy for languages that use non-latin characters is not easy but it had been my personal style for bot names. :) -- Cat chi? 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a ko.wikisource sysop.
s:ko:위키자료집:봇 신청
This is the Bot Request page. :) -- WonRyong (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thanks for uploading Image:Air (tv) logo (lesser whitespace).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop disrupting the noticeboard. Nakon 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With a trivial amount of compromise you can avoid a revert war. But you are running the show with an iron fist. Tells a lot about how ani discussions go. I will stop reverting the second you restore my comment and remove the discussion templates. -- Cat chi? 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem to get it. Three editors have told you to either drop it or take it to DRV. Stop edit warring and do so. Nakon 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not going to take it to Drv. And I will revert that page back. You could save me and everyone a lot of time if you just restored my comment. -- Cat chi? 01:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- So because three (four including myself) have asked you to drop it, you're going to continue just to violate WP:POINT? Nakon 01:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point? What point am I illustrating? Do not throw random policies and guidelines at me. I am far to experienced for that. -- Cat chi? 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't throw account age into the ring. Your actions are clearly disruptive and need to stop. I'd advise you to listen to this edit by Daniel. Nakon 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How ironic. You are accusing me of being elitist indirectly because I complain about arbcom eliteicism. -- Cat chi? 02:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're the one who mentioned account age. Nakon 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not. I merely said I was experienced. You interpreted that on your own. -- Cat chi? 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Who do you heck do you think you are characterizing my concerns and comments as trolling? Even actual legal court decisions can be criticized. Why can't arbocom? And this isn't even tied to any decisions by arbcom on a dispute. -- Cat chi? 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because they've made their point clear and your comments are to effect of "well screw them, I deny they can control the way RfAr works". What you seem to forget is all the RfAr pages are designed for the community to interact with the Committee, not the other way around, and as such Committee have control over the format and composition of all pages in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/* and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/*. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WC/CC...you're being disruptive and three arb clerks have, in various words, told you to chill out. So do so. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken this issue with the foundation itself including Jimbo. I will drop this issue when I feel comfortable with the result. You can count on that. Arbitration clerks are not divine entities. I will not be patronized. -- Cat chi? 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good. I eagerly await the Foundation's inaction on the issue due to them totally disagreeing with you. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is everything that scripted? My my... -- Cat chi? 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're just naive and ignorant. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naive in the sense I still believe foundation would listen to what I have to say? Ignorant as in I see a cultural problem others want to hide under the carpet? -- Cat chi? 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and no. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you so sure? -- Cat chi? 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- My gut. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How ironic. You are attempting to rebuff my attempt to criticize wikipedia by linking to external criticism of wikipedia by Stephan Colbert. -- Cat chi? 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, calm down plz. —Dark talk 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I be "uncalm"? I am the one merely proposing minor changes to arbcom. People are going out of their way to attack me for it. It is them who should be calm. -- Cat chi? 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, misrepresenting the facts. It was disagreed with by arbitrators and clerks, and you're going out of your way to threaten to make edits which will disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You even link to the
essay policy when doing so regarding the mediation restriction. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What essay is that? -- Cat chi? 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Policy, even. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I intend to disrupt wikipedia by successfully mediating a dispute. Your point? -- Cat chi? 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what Daniel said... —Dark talk 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Right, that is what the ridiculous arbcom remedy bans me from though. -- Cat chi? 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The respected members of the Arbitration Committee i) believe mediating "require[s] skill and the trust of the community", ii) believe you "[have] unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a number of contested articles" ... "where he had a strong POV", and iii) have therefore "prohibited [you] from holding [yourself] out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute". These respected and elected representatives of the community do not believe you have the necessary qualities or community support to be a mediator, and have banned you from doing so to prevent further disruption. You cannot ignore an arbitration decision just because you disagree with its ratio. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? Will you block me for mediating? What makes you think I haven't mediated many disputes via a sockpuppet account? -- Cat chi? 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, stop digging yourself into a hole. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am doing the exact opposite. Trying to pull arbcom out of a hole. -- Cat chi? 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be a couple of matters you are fighting on today at least - a RFAR redirect issue, and the removal of the prohibition on mediating for others. Unfortunately both of those seem to be problematic. The Arbitration Committee generally manages its own subpages, and there doesn't seem to be consensus either by Arbitrators, or arbcom clerks, or even by the community, to treat those differently than they are being treated. And the mediation issue, was considered by appeal very recently, and whilst questions were raised as to whether a lesser restriction might help, in the end, no arbitrator was willing to say the restriction should be removed as recently as March 2008. Wider communal consensus on both just says no interest in more discussion, best I can tell.
The communal concern in the mediation issue seems to be that you are still prone to arguement rather than discussion, and unfortunately that seems to be the case. On the other hand you are under considerable stress and are likely snapping at many things in part for that reason too. (Others have done so as well, not just you, I should add.) The concern I have is that these topics may be going nowhere in which case eventually your continuing pushing at them will just be seen as a problem by others.
I'm not sure what to suggest, but accepting what is, rather than consistently reacting to it, is probably going to be part of it. Easy for me to say, I know; I dont feel under pressure of the circumstances you've described. So I am wary of saying a lot because Im not sure I can be a help here, sadly. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike my activity to be classified as "fighting". I am not confronting - hardly arguing. I am not even being treated seriously... My efforts have been declared as trolling though. That sure surprised me. Please avoid such language.
- Clarification. Issues I discussed today:
- Possible restructuring of arbcom's main page WP:RFAR into two sub pages
- This effort was declared as trolling
- Recreation of Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Davenbelle redirect
- This discussion was closed, the admin deleting the page refuses to discuss this out of process deletion.
- I am not binded by any rule arbitrators aren't.
- FYI I relayed to arbcom over my intention to ignore their decision completely.
- It doesn't qualify as an ultimatum as I am not proposing anything. Also an ultimatum to mediate would be an oxymoron.
- I do not believe arbitrators seriously discussed my appeal. If they have, I see no evidence of it. I think arbitrators do not have the slightest clue what those restrictions are doing to me - to a person who would rather die than mediate something on this project. Arbitrators have succeeded in disgusting me away from mediation. Let there be no mistake about it.
- It is simply offensive to every value I believe in such as honesty and fairness that arbcom and the community is willing to consider unblock/unban of trolls, vandals and other disruptive users (I am not even referencing to the Jack Merridew case) and yet go out of their way to ignore my appeal. How many edits does the indef blocked MARMOT get? MARMOT being a person who wrote vandalism bots, abused MediaWiki vulnerabilities to vandalize among other issues. He was unblocked and given a second chance, twice. Me being a good user (relative to MARMOT at least) have been given no such chances. What have I done to deserved to be treated so poorly?
- Then there is the matter of how would people punish me for successfully mediating... Seriously, would you block me? Even if the Mediation fails to resolve the dispute... Would you block me? Even if I were to be blocked for how long would it be? Based on what? Arbcom remedy doesn't even talk about blocking.
- Do you have any idea how much crap I need to deal with due to the expired remedies? Do you? Do you have any idea how useless arbcom has been so far? I have been bringing issues to arbcom since 2005. Not only do I need to hand feed arbitrators evidence and etc but I also have to deal with their poor judgment which only affects me. I am condemned to many things as a result.
- Even a one week newbie knows I will never be granted admin tools.
- Why? because I have been infront of arbcom at least four times now. In all cases Davenbelle was of course involved. A 5th case was avoided which is why the arbcom is still dealing with this.
- I am completely banned from editing Kurdish or Armenian related articles even if the article isn't controversial.
- I want to point out a good deal of these articles are hijacked by lobbyists. CAMERA people were merely careless, they aren't the only one. The Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case is a tool only useful to lobbyists. Regular inexperienced users can be sanctioned. Experienced paid/unpaid staff of lobbies can change accounts faster than you can change underwear.
- No one has been taking be seriously since the first arbitration case. People always assume bad faith and mistreat me. They constantly accuse me of a hidden agenda. They call me paranoid even in the light of Christal clear evidence.
- I am in a position where I cannot loose anything.
- I am on a dynamic IP range. I know the inner workings of the community and MediaWiki to avoid any kind of block. I have obeyed any block to dat voluntarily even if I could easily avoid them. This isn't intended as a threat btw. It isn't like there is anything the community can take away from me.
- I will not compromise from my personal values on honesty and fairness even if it incriminates me. So getting another account is out of the question for me. Dishonesty works better in the mechanics of our wiki-society. Under the guise of "privacy" you and I know how many sanctioned people returned editing. They become less disruptive so as to stay under the radar - but what was the point of the sanction?
- I already know from experience that the arbitration committee is anything but helpful. This isn't intended to be an insult. Just an observation from experience. So I know my expectations.
- I am willing to listen others as much as they are willing to listen to me. You are obviously willing to listen to me which is why I am willing to listen to you as a person. I consider you different from rest of the arbitrators per your initiative to talk to me.
- -- Cat chi? 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Difference in timesptamp is the amount of thought I put into this. -- Cat chi? 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're under stressful times here, and you're getting nowhere fast. I think, however, the main problem is you're approaching things from the wrong angle, and with the wrong attitude. What is it that you need done? I will undertake my best attempts to help, so long as what you need is fair and warranted.
Anthøny 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I made a few minor suggestions (creation of a redirect, minor restructuring of rfar) and I have been almost crucified for it. I do not know. I do need the redirect to more easily link to the case.
- As it stands, I probably will be forced to link to the Davenbelle for the next 47 years if my past 3 years is any indication. I wil hand feed the community more evidence and links to past cases (which are less than fun to type). I do not expect this dispute to be resolved for decades. If I turn out to be wrong... Well I suppose that is a good thing.
- I also need to be able to follow discussions on ArbCom. I spend a good deal of my time editing from a shared GPRS connection which has a speed close to a shared 56k (its slightly less). It's sluggish as is. As much as I find arbcom to be completely useless when dealing with disputes, the incompetent wikipedia will not move a yoctometer to help me and delegate the dispute to arbcom like it did the past 3 years.
- I intend to file an rfar case on Jack Merridew. I know there is a clarification but the overly complex long term nature of the case that seems to be a better way to address the problem. You being a clerk can probably make the transition better than I. Please make this transition. A clarification has a very high chance of disappearing for inactivity per my past experience.
- I seemingly need to demonstrate mediation (a field of science I have no interest to) in order to abolish an arbcom remedy. Since arbcom has shown complete apathy on the matter, I have to do this all by my self. Fun thing is I am only interested in the removal of this non-expiring remedy. Currently the remedy only serves to help trolls. I am open to suggestions on getting this remedy off my back.
- -- Cat chi? 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are these realistic possibilities? -- Cat chi? 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deferring a reply to this until I have time to do the thread justice. Anthøny 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deferring until tomorrow. Anthøny 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well? [2] -- Cat chi? 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ah! My Goddess (Quiz Game).png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot, Computer, made an edit to a redirect that I had created saying that it was "Fixing double redirect". However, I am unable to figure out what it actually changed! The diff is here. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To an untrained eye that may be... but
- are different pages. The difference is "6%C2%A0" which are probably invisible control characters.
- -- Cat chi? 21:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. It just seems strange. Shouldn't the article be the one without the control characters? -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it should be moved. -- Cat chi? 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's been moved now. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at your map here Image:G22countries.png, I noticed that China is not shaded as it should be. Could you fix that? Thanks. —OverMyHead 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I altered it accrdingly: commons:Image:G22countries.png. Is that good enough? -- Cat chi? 10:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you should do the usual talk on the request page. From the three active voters 2 voted against because of the fact that in name computer there is no -bot part in. Carsrac (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posted a remark there. -- Cat chi? 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
|
_logo_(lesser_whitespace).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_(lesser_whitespace).png)){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
