User talk:Mikaey/Archives/2009/August

Hello

Well if I appear to be edit warring I apologize. I am doing my best to retire from wikipedia. REALLY. The article Libertarian (metaphysic) however could use some help. Since I can not find the term Libertarian (metaphysic) or Metaphysical libertarian anywhere in common use. Except here on wikipedia that is. If that is not Original Research then what is the proper Wiki term for such a phenomenon? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps neologism? I might suggest that, if you feel the way you do about the issue, that perhaps you submit the article to AfD. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 21:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thats it. THANK YOU. Again sorry for the other stuff.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey that got removed by the editor again. I tried to add an Afd but it appears to be messed up. Sorry...Could you please help, I dont think I have ever done AFD on an article before. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Hope this is the right one. Thanks for your help, you are most kind. And a good reflection on the community. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Mikaey, Devil's advocate 03:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey it looks like I lost the AFD. I tried, I was pushing for uniformity. Oh well win some, lose some. Thanks again.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

SC Vaslui

Hi! When you moved SC Vaslui to FC Vaslui, you apparently forgot to move the talk page in the process. I also noticed that there's another talk page for the same article at Talk:Sporting Club Vaslui. To make matters even move confusing, the Sporting Club Vaslui article itself was copy-paste moved into the current FC Vaslui article on 12 October.^[1][2] Would you mind taking a look at this mess? I think the two articles need a history merge, and the talk pages should be moved to the correct location. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...whoops on my part. In my defense, it was 2 in the morning. I think I've got the histories sorted out, so all should be good to go. Thanks! Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Histmerge list

I would like you to add an other condition to the list of conditions for the history merge list: That the xource page, prior to being redirected, had at least one author who did not create the first non-redirect version of the target. If this isn't the ase, then the target page would correctly be attributed to the author of that version even without the history merge, making it unnecessary. For eample, Aircraft '150' doesn't need to be history-merged into Aircraft 150. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought about this, but the problem with that (which I talked about here) is that, in some cases (and I'll admit, not very often), chain cut-and-pastes are performed -- e.g., article A gets cut-and-pasted to article B, then later on, article B is cut-and-pasted to article C. If I were to overlook cases such as the one you described, then the chain cut-and-pastes would be overlooked. However, with the way the bot matches articles currently, it would match article B being cut-and-pasted to article C; once that were fixed, it would later match article A being cut-and-pasted to (what is now) article C. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Subpage

Re the subpage you created, it contains a number of mistakes and some things are linked grossly out of context. I feel you are drawing premature conclusions from incomplete facts and I'm not sure that it is really fair or appropriate to do so. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, I'm here to look at the facts. The fact is, you dug up an old version of someone's userpage and used it against them in an AfD, even though it had nothing to do with the AfD, and you didn't back away from that position, even after everyone else told you that you were wrong. The fact is, you made an issue out of a perfectly valid CfD, you accused the nominator (out of nowhere, I might add) of being POINTy, and even after everyone else told you to go through the proper channels, you instead went shopping for a better opinion. The fact is, you've had issues with multiple people (more than I had time to document), and there's a point at which, after you've had run-ins with so many people, that you have to stop looking at the other people as the problem, and instead look at you as the problem. I'll tell you straight out that you are not in good standing with the community, at least in my view. Your behavior needs to change, now. Here's my advice:

• Assume good faith. Not everyone is here to destroy the encyclopedia. If you come across an action that you think is questionable, assume that they did it for the right reasons and go from there.
• Stay civil. Even if someone has done something wrong, focus on helping them understand and improve on what they did wrong. Don't start name calling, even if it's not specifically directed at any one person.
• Use the proper channels. During the whole discussion on the WP user categories, I couldn't help but notice how many times people were telling you to go to DRV, and yet you never did. That really made me question what your motives were. If you want to get something done, most times, there are channels to get it done -- use them. Don't go forum shopping for a better opinion.
• And finally, don't be paranoid. I highly doubt that anyone is stalking your edits. Even if they are, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It would only be a bad thing if they were doing it to harass you, which they're not.

Mikaey, Devil's advocate 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikaey, as much as I've always valued your objectivity, I believe you still do not have the full picture in regards to some of the things you included on the subpage and there really are a few mistakes in there as well.
I always Assume good faith initially but I will not blindly AGF when an editor has an obvious history of edit warring or disruption. Here is a recent example of where it absolutely made sense to AGF when a well meaning editor reverted an edit I made. [3] However when an editor does things such as what I documented here [4] then there is little to be gained by blindly AGF when it is quite clear that the editor is not willing to work with others. Note that I absolutely did initially AGF when this began, [5] even after he and another editor had previously been edit warring [6] (17 June - 30 June). The bottom line is I'm here to improve Wikipedia – not be a Fluffy bunny. It's unfortunate, but I do step on a few toes once in awhile, and I won't hesitate to call things the way they really are. This can make some people unhappy at times, but in the end I'm here to improve Wikipedia and that is what ultimately matters.
In regards to the AFD you mentioned, I noticed the stuff on their userpage because it was blank and I clicked on the last revision in the edit history. When someone includes what amounts to a manifesto on their userpage [7] stating how much they dislike Wikipedia, how Wikipedia contains nothing but "misinformation", and contains statements such as "So, with that in mind, you will be unsurprised that I have no interest in moving up to administrator status, nor do I have a lot of concern over whether my edits or comments comport to any wikipedia-specific rules of etiquette. I really have no loyalty to the Wikipedia "community" whatsoever." then yes, that is absolutely going to raise some red flags. You really should read these two [8] [9] edits however, specifically points 3 and 4 of the second diff.
As for the WP user cats, there is a very good reason I dropped the issue when I did and did not pursue a DRV at that time. I did actually write up a DRV for these and I still have it saved away to eventually get those resolved. Because I feel this is still a sensitive issue for another editor, I do not wish to elaborate too much more on-wiki but I would be happy to discuss it off-wiki or via email.
Regarding stalking of edits, there was a very involved case of one editor doing just that to me not too terribly long ago (and we can always bring the admins who handled it into this discussion if need be) and that particular case happens to be very well documented. The most recent "edit stalking" I absolutely do believe was meant to harass, as there was little to be gained otherwise from either of these two edits: [10] [11] That said, I am hopeful that given the outcome of the AFD related to the first and the ANI drama related to the second that this particular editor has learned that following another editor around in this manner in an attempt to stir things up is probably not a very good idea. The second edit in particular to the talk page is absolutely in no way constructive towards resolving the issues that were being discussed and I stand firm in my assertion that it was solely meant as an assault to my character.
Btw, I would very much appreciate it if you would add a {{NOINDEX}} template to that subpage so that Google will not index it.
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, stop trying to justify your actions. What you did was wrong, you were told it was wrong. Fix it. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikaey, let's not start an argument over this, I'm simply describing it how it really is. You appear to be claiming that I do not assume good faith and that I'm uncivil but that most certainly is not true. While I occasionally make a mistake (we all do), each of the summaries you created as examples where you claim I "did wrong" are incomplete, appear to be quite once sided, and contain a number of errors. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, my perception of you are that you is precisely what you say above, that you "do not assume good faith and that [you're] uncivil". Yworo (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that before you start pestering Tothwolf over some of this, you might want to address Theserialcomma (talk · contribs), who's been harassing and stalking him, at the same time. Whatever behavioral problems are there are aggravated specifically by TSC. Remove him from the equation and see if Tothwolf is as evil as you would believe. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I barely even looked at that. Most of the stuff I documented predates their interactions. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

carcass

Excellent call; thanks for stepping in. I probably should have given up already, but as each post kept furthering misunderstandings of my view, I kept trying to respond in the almost certainly vain hope that at some point there would be some useful communication. I should have quit when Hochman did. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to bug you. I tried to help my friend write the To Live A Lie Records article. Its probably a conflict of interest since I run the label but I thought my label would no longer be WP for music since it has been mentioned on bands who are already notable under Wikipedia standards. Also there is a large writeup on the label in the newest issue of Decibel magazine which is very notable. Would it be possible to unprotect this article to have a stub article or do these things not make it notable enough? Between three bands mentioning this label and the writeup in Decibel it should be notable enough as 625 Thrashcore. Sorry for the straightforward message. I'd like to learn more about Wikipedia so I can write articles but I wanted someone who knew how to do it first. Help would be greatly appreciated, thanks! --WillFastcore (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi WillFastcore,

It would be a conflict of interest, but that doesn't necessarily stop you from writing the article (although it generally does strongly discourage it). Before you start, I'd suggest taking a look at WP:BAND -- this is our criteria for deciding who/what in the music industry is considered notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. If you feel that your label is notable under those criteria, then you can make a request at WP:RFUP to have the page unprotected so that you can create it. Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! Mikaey, Devil's advocate 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --WillFastcore (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiBiff

Hi, I was thinking of making something similar to WikiBiff, but a little more complex in C#. I could help you make the updates. What do you think? Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 00:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what specifically did you have in mind? (P.S. -- WikiBiff is already written in C#.) Mikaey, Devil's advocate 02:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an email. Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 14:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Car stereo wars page

Hi Mikaey, this is my first attempt at wikipedia so please excuse my lack of knowledge, I am trying! I created a page Car stereo wars which you have deleted for copyright infringement, the page that it is similar to uses the biography of the band which I wrote and own copyright of. I mentioned this on my talk page but this has been deleted too? Sorry, I'm a bit lost, how can I restore the page? Frankensteinnn (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the hyphen?

Why the hyphen in "German-language"? Is this proper English? The hyphen in the sentence in the article intro "The following individuals have written philosophical texts in the German-language" is definitely bad English. If this is correct, then why didn't you change "German philosphers" to "German-philosophers", or why didn't you rename the article "German language" to "German-language"? Sorry, but this doesn't appear to be conventional usage. Amerindianarts (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about List of German-language philosophers. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me either way. I was doing a history merge -- essentially, at one point in time, someone did what's called a "cut-and-paste move". What this means is that, instead of using the move function, someone cut the text out of List of German language philosophers and pasted it into List of German-language philosophers. This is undesireable, because it breaks up the history of the page, and makes it harder to track who contributed what to the article. What I did is a procedure called a history merge, and part of the process involves moving the old page on top of the new page -- that's why you saw me perform the move. So, like I said, the actual name of the article doesn't concern me in the least; it's more that I want the history to stay with the article. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I find "German- language" incorrect and undesirable. It can't be undone and I looked up how to move a page but can't find the prescribed links the article refers to. I don't want to move it incorrectly as was done previously. Amerindianarts (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I looked through the history and can't see where it was changed. Odd, because I was one of the major builders of the list and do not remember it ever being "German-language". I think I should have noticed because it is not proper. It has been months since I checked the page. Let it ride. Amerindianarts (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My bot identified this edit back in 2006 as the point where it was cut-and-pasted (although it doesn't look that way any more, since I've already done the history merge). If you want it moved back, you can always tag the old page with {{db-move|List of German-language philosophers}}, assuming that there is consensus to do so. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

After checking Wiki I see articles for "German-language poets" and "German-language authors" also. It appears Wiki went hyphen crazy. I think it is contrary to good usage but I'm not going to fight what seems to be the trend and commonly accepted practice on Wiki. Thanks for your time and explanation. Amerindianarts (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there are "language philosophers" who could be German, hyphenating "German-language" is a good call in that case. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Defaultsort, listas and &

In general I put "and" in the listas, but it is also important to space it: so Chas&Dave becomes "Chas and Dave". Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

It is a fix I need to make to the bot, yes. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick Davies

Hi, I've just created a page on nick Davies, so thought I'd give you a heads up as I see you previously successfully nominated a page with the same name for CSD. As far as I can see, the subject is very notable, there's info on some awards and books already in the article. I'll be working on it a lot more over the coming weeks, I was surprised to see it had been speedily deleted before, as there's a mass of information, interviews, awards details, book reviews etc on the internet, and thats without even looking at other sources. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're fine, the previous "article" was a short blurb about some unnotable 17-year-old kid. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 23:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, that makes a lot more sense :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you do a run please?

I set all the Listas for biog articles (talk) with names like Xxxxx of Yyyyy (dealing with accented characters but probably with a lower-case "o") some considerable time ago. I am now running into these in main-space with broken DEFAULTSORT, seems a shame to waste the work. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

Sure thing. Gimme some time, right now the bot isn't programmed to bring the listas into sync with the DEFAULTSORT (if the page already has a listas on it). Mikaey, Devil's advocate 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your block of Logicist

What possessed you to do this? He has added a wealth of material to the History of logic article [12]. The content he has added seems fine to me (except that the article now ends in mid-sentence, as a result of your block). The previous version of the article (which the damian account largely contributed) only went up to the early nineteenth century. Logicist has got as far as Russell's paradox. Who is going to complete it. You? I am lost for words. Logicist also seems to have made some good contributions to the article function (mathematics) Paulatim (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He admitted to being a sockpuppet of Peter Damian, who is under a community ban. Enough said. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also asked you, who is going to complete the section that is half-finished o/a your block? It strikes me as extremely irresponsible. Our main duty is to the project and to adding to the sum of human knowledge available online. You have damaged that objective, seriously. What do you have to say for yourself? Paulatim (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Our main duty is to protect the encyclopedia. Peter Damian has proven himself incompatible with that goal. As for his articles, it doesn't matter who is going to finish them; honestly, anyone is free to. I don't really feel the need to divulge any further into my reasons for this block; if you have an issue with it, feel free to take it to ANI. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that the "Peter Damian" on Wikipedia Review was indeed operating the "Logicist" account on Wikipedia. Was a Checkuser run to confirm? Or, is it now within the power of any banned editor to get any similarly-interested editor in good standing blocked, merely by announcing it is "him" (or "her") self on Wikipedia Review? -- Thekohser 02:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...he admitted it on Wikipedia. See here. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo the sentiments of Paultim. I am the primary author on the mathematics history stuff, and Logicist has been supportive of my efforts, and a source of very useful information & critiquing. At this point Logicist's work on History of Logic is in Logicist's name-space, so as far as I'm concerned Logicist isn't much a threat to anyone.

By the way, what is Peter Damian's offense? I hunted for it but couldn't find it. Since everything associated with them is blocked, I can't find out what the hell the trouble is. Lemme know, Bill Wvbailey (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Mr, Bailey. You may open a can of worms here that ends up getting you yourself blocked for a bit of "corrective meditation" time. I just thought I'd add, though I've never had much more than a passing interest in logic, the User:Logicist was inspiring enough to me to create more free content for the encyclopedia. -- Thekohser 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's basically put it as "he pissed off the community enough to where the community voted to ban him". You can read more about it here. Thekohser, I don't see any need for a block here, nothing wrong with asking questions. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"attack" subpages that are really meant to document abuse before submitting it

you used to have a subpage documenting what you perceived to be abuse by tothwolf. recently, I've run into a problem with an admin wikihounding/harassing me and I've decided to document it so that I can report it. the abuse goes back quite a while and it would take me a long time to track down the diffs, so i've created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theserialcomma/InappropriateAdmins. I was almost immediately then contacted by another admin who warned me that I might actually be attacking the admin in question by having a page like this. Would you please advise me as to whether I can continue to add diffs to this page, or if I should delete it?

Thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the official stance on it is, but my personal feeling on it is that what's in your userspace is yours, and as long as you're not calling attention to it (outside of the appropriate forums), it shouldn't be an issue. However, once it's discovered, I could easily see how it would be a source of annoyance for the person you're documenting. I guess my suggestion would be to keep it documented on a file on your computer, instead of on-wiki. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 06:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

the subpage you created that i'm referencing has been deleted. even though i cannot see it, could you give me the diff so i could add it to my evidence? i was accused of being involved in the situation somehow but i wasn't, so it'd be useful. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, I've had no interaction with you regarding your current problems with other editors and I suggest you leave me out of it. Based on what I've been observing from my watchlist you seem to have brought it on yourself. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

this isn't about you, tothwolf, so you can back off now. User: Mikaey created a subpage that documented some perceived abuse by you. none of the evidence that he gathered had anything to do with my interactions with you. except, then Jeske Couriano randomly came here to tell Mikaey that there is "an agent provocateur".

Jeske's exact words are "you might want to address Theserialcomma, who's been harassing and stalking (the alleged abusive user), at the same time. Whatever behavioral problems are there are aggravated specifically by TSC. Remove him from the equation and see if (the alleged user) is as evil as you would believe.".

User: Mikaey responds: "I barely even looked at that. Most of the stuff I documented predates their interactions. ". Actually, I was literally uninvolved in any of the evidence that Mikaey gathered. Jeske Couriano attacked and blamed me without examining the evidence in any way.

So yes, you are right, Tothwolf, this should have nothing to do with you. You and I have had no recent interactions until you came to this page. This is about Jeske Couriano hounding me. You don't need to respond to this any further because we have nothing else to discuss. I am currently gathering diffs of Jeske's abuse (e.g. [[13]], but if any of them involve you, I'll make sure to say "a user" instead of your name. I have no intention of further communicating with you. Thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me be blunt, chummer: Were it not for your interesting contributions history, accusations of bias against one of THE most neutral administrators I know, and your harassment of Tothwolf and SarekOfVulcan, I wouldn't have interposed myself. However, I was here when H got chased off and JVM attempted to escalate his harassment. I don't want to see any more legit editors leaving the project because someone took undue interest in them, as you have.

It is because you have such a history that I'm even bothering to call you out. All I see in that contribs history, in between category removals, is pestering other users, including taking an unhealthy interest in Toth and SOV, accusing GWH of not being neutral, and, recently, butting into my business with an unrelated user. You are not innocent by a long shot, TSC; if you keep denying it asking for diffs you will regret asking for them. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)