Jump to content

User talk:Tyciol/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2009

[edit]

stopping the IPs

[edit]

It is often difficult to stop the IP vandals until they have made repeated attacks on articles. The one you mention has only been active today with three reversions - and, unfortunately, that isn't usually quite enough for a block yet. If any IP address needs to be continually reverted (say, 4 or 5 times in a short period) than you should place a report at WP:AIV so that they can be blocked. Cheers - — CactusWriter | needles 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (December 2008)

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

[edit]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar roll call

[edit]

The Avatar: The Last Airbender task force is having a roll call. Please add yourself to the list via this link if you intend to still be active with the project.

Cheers, NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Flexibility

[edit]

I have nominated Flexibility, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexibility. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champissage

[edit]

Are you sure champi means head? I would have to assume this word is related to shampoo and not to head. Also, Indian isn't a language; I assume you mean Hindi. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of Googling, I'm reasonably confident that I'm right and wikiHow is wrong. chāmpi is the Hindi word referring to champi head message; it really has no translation. I will change the article now and you're welcome to reword it if you think you can phrase it better. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Error

[edit]

I am unable to View my User Page. When I click on the link to it, it sends me to my Talk Page. Even when Im Logged Off, I am unable to View it. Why is it doing that and what can be done to fix that?--Lolitologist (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of Faith

[edit]

I would appreciate it if you took a look at the current state of this article. Spotfixer (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

[edit]

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

[edit]

Please comment

[edit]

Hi there. As a fellow WP:AVATAR member, can you please check out Talk:Aang#Hair color? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OES

[edit]

You were right about GOdF, I got them mixed up with Le Droit Humain who do admit women. Do you know if they could be incorporated into the Regular Masonic jurisdictions article? I think they branched off from GOdF. To me, admitting women is as significant step as admitting other races/atheists. Now, in terms of the OES, I am a bit confused, because if the UGLE does not approve of it, how come it is recommended by and associated with some lodges who still receive approval from the UGLE? Tyciol (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your last question correctly, you want to know why some Lodges which are in Fraternal Amity/Recognition with UGLE are ALSO in amity/recognize GOdF. I don't know which ones DO, but I am aware that many of the USA GL's which are in mutual recognition with UGLE recognize different GL's than UGLE in certain jurisdictions - Italy being one of them. Why does this happen? Because every Grand Lodge is Sovereign - no one GL can tell another what to do, or whom to recognize. If enough other GL's disagree with the choice one GL makes, they will choose to de-recognize the "offender", but they CANNOT tell that GL what to do. As far as comparisons between women, race, and atheism, they're all such different things that i do not think they admit of proper comparison in dealing with Lodge business. The non-admission of women, like the non-admission of atheists, goes back very far, and is considered by many to be an unmovable landmark. The non-admission of African or black people, or Asians, or any other race, has no landmark justification. However, neither it, nor the non-admission of women, should be compared to the bans on atheists. Atheists choose their beliefs, as surely as anyone else choose theirs. Their beliefs are not inherent, born in characteristics, like gender and race are. SO i have less issue with that ban, than I do on the other two.--Vidkun (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

[edit]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Systema subcategories

[edit]

A reason for placing the practitioners under country subcategories was to create a cross reference with "martial artists from country X". Sorry I'm not familiar with Systema. You might want to raise the concern at WikiProject Martial arts or ask if others want to start a new WikiProject. Shawnc (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Kovalyov

[edit]

Hi there, Tyciol! Answering your question. Here's some info in Russian about Kovalyov the Justice Minister [1]. He was in the Chernomyrdin cabinet and became "famous" for the sauna incident (he was caught on tape with three prostitutes in a sauna). As far as Kovalyov the USSR Hero is concerned, here's an article about him in Russian, as well [2]. The guy set 22 world records (!) on Tupolev Tu-104. I don't expect you to be able to read Russian, but please do not delete the entries on these gentlemen. If I have time, I'll write articles on both of them. Thanks for pointing this out, though, and happy editing! KNewman (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and could you please undo your redirects as far as Russian Ministry of Justice is concerned? It's not right when they take users to the articles about Ustinov and Konovalov. We gotta create a separate article on the ministry itself. Thanx! KNewman (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Sentaku

[edit]

I have nominated Sentaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

[edit]
Hello, Tyciol. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for your kind words, I look forward to working with you. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Tyciol. You have new messages at Ikip's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
[edit]

I don't really have the time to babysit this article, if you do, please reverse any anonymous edits which don't make sense on the U.S. section. Also check my latest edits and discussion. I don't really feel like putting any more work into this because it is pretty much all explained in the article on obscenity. (As far as the legality of such things in the U.S. goes this article might as well redirect there.)Nope01 (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

[edit]
WELCOME from a Article Rescue Squad member

Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Tyciol/2009, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:

I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love your statement

[edit]

RE: "I'm inclusionist for info, but deletionist for whitespace"[3] thanks for making me grin :) Ikip (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lih

[edit]

What was your reasoning for creating this redirect? Another user has nominated it for deletion, which I support. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

[edit]

Proposed deletion of Silent Three

[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Silent Three, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

notability is not indicated and there is no article in which to merge this

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Boston (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force

[edit]

Cardiology task force

[edit]
Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:SilentThreeAnnual.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro(talk) 04:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

[edit]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (February 2009)

[edit]

OES

[edit]

Hi Tyciol, about a month ago you posted a question about UGLE's attitued towards OES on Vidkun's talk page. I just noticed it, and thought I would give you a more complete answer.

Approval/disapproval of OES is a jurisdictional thing. Remember that each Masonic Jurisdiction is independant of the others. While UGLE is respected and influential, it does not set the rules for other jurisdictions. OES is predominantly a US phenomina, and is very popular in those jurisdictions. If UGLE were to make a big deal of their disapproval, they would quickly face strong opposition by all 51 US Grand Lodges. UGLE may disapprove of OES, but it does not feel so opposed that it would risk a schism over it.

That said... There is an important difference between OES and Le Droit Humain (and other forms of Female Freemasonry). OES is not the same as female Freemasonry... it is a completely seperate organization that US Freemasonry supports. OES has different rituals, and the women who belong to OES do not call themselves Freemasons. Le Droit Humain and similar bodies, on the other hand, do use the same rituals as male Freemasonry and do claim to be Freemasons. Hope this clarifies things for you. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ARS!

[edit]
Lifebuoy

Hi, Tyciol, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Some points that may be helpful:
  • WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Wikipedia articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
  • Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Wikipedia may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
  • The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
  • Our primary work is improving Wikipedia articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
  • Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again — Welcome! ~~~~


Wombstretcha

[edit]

The article Wombstretcha has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll host it on userspace until then ;). I will mention his notability which I am sure of, but only when I've sourced it. Your message is (Wikipedia:CSD#A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) User:Tyciol/Wombstretcha Tyciol (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Japanese Bibliography

[edit]

Just making sure you know this project is completely inactive. It was originally a class project for some students at Columbia University, and hasn't been touched since they all left. If you want to start something along these lines for WikiProject Japan, I would support that (and I'm sure others would, too). It may take a little reworking to come up with something which will work better in the long run, but I think it could benefit the project. Please let me know your ideas on this (perhaps on the project talk page so others can participate, too). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I have started a discussion to that effect here. Please come participate in the discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

Hi, Tyciol. The deletion that you pointed to was only a deletion of sources. The sources were being used improperly (to support the assertion that "pro pedophile activism" is only done by "pedophiles" - something apparently disproven by the article itself), so I struck all of them. You should feel free to dig through the sources and see if there is any valid use, though. EmilianaMartín (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

[edit]

The WPVG Newsletter (March 2009)

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

[edit]

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - April 2009

[edit]
The WikiProject Horror Newsletter
Volume I, no. 3 / April 2009
Previous issue

The Coordinator nomination has been extended!
Please go to the nomination page now to add yourself to the election for a coordinator position.
Voting will begin on May 1st.
The current Collaboration of the Month (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) has been extended by a month!
The next collaboration will be selected on April 30th, 2009.
Please place suggestions for the next collaboration here and/or vote on current suggestions.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My IP

[edit]

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: LOE

[edit]
Hello, Tyciol. You have new messages at Bikasuishin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bikasuishin (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo task force membership

[edit]

If you are not already aware, the Super Smash Bros. task force (formerly WikiForce Super Smash Bros.) has very recently been merged into the Nintendo task force (formerly WikiProject Nintendo). As a result, the memberlist of the old task force has been merged into the Nintendo task force's memberlist. In order to gauge who is still active and willing to participate actively in the Nintendo task force, I have placed all those members under the inactive participants list, which is located below the active participants list at WP:NIN.

If you wish to continue participation as a member of the Nintendo task force, then go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo/left panel, remove your entry from the inactive list, and place your entry at the bottom of the active list. If you don't wish to be a member of the Nintendo task force, then simply remove your name from the list. One month from now, on May 16, 2009, all remaining entries on the inactive list will be removed. Thank you, MuZemike 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New image project

[edit]

Hi. This little note is just to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. In addition, I'm proposing merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group, because their aims seem to be very similar. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Discussion about redirecting those projects is located here. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding the WPVG Newsletter

[edit]

Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.

—VG Newsletter Contributors

Proposed deletion of Kko

[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kko, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is not technically a disambiguation page. Also - for proper names this topic is already covered in the intro to Japanese names. For megane and tsundere I don't think that commenting is necessary. Meganekko refers to the always-femine manga aspect, and Tsunderekko is already redirected to the gender neutral Tsundere. JCutter (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lubdan/Leprechaun

[edit]

Sorry for the late response. I'm going to wait until the comic comes out before I write a good history of it. Then add on with each issue. Personally, I don't think they should screw with Lep's character like that, especially giving him a name (Lubdan? Come on.) But I will do my very best to add onto his legacy, no matter how bizarre it gets. Like it's not already weird enough. *lol* LepFan13 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism Patrol

[edit]

My pleasure. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link added to Julianne disambiguation page

[edit]
Julianne Bournonville, a name used by Julie Alix de la Fay (1746 or 1748 – 1826) ("Bournonville" being her maiden name), a Belgian ballet dancer and dance pedagogue.

You added the first link to the text above. It is merely a redirect to the second link. Do you have any objection if it were removed? It seems only confusing to have two links to the same article. -- spincontrol 08:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

[edit]

Christopher Handley

[edit]

Per your request, I provided a link to the Department of Justice press release on the guilty plea on the talk page for the article "Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors." 209.222.133.181 (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

[edit]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE to all members of WikiProject Pokémon

[edit]

Following a discussion on the Project's talk page, we will be updating WikiProject Pokémon's list of participants. To do this, all users previously listed as "Active" have been moved to the "Inactive" list; after this change anyone may add/re-add their name to the "Active" participants list. As your name was one of those on the Active members list, I am notifying you in case your active interest remains. Thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to keep our list of active participants as accurate and up-to-date as possible. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of entries in a disambiguation page

[edit]

This is a note to remind you that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Order_of_entries suggests listing the most-used entries first. I've noticed that you alphabetized the entries in CBC instead of sorting by usage. I'm going to reshuffle the entries a bit and put the redlinks at the end of each category. Lisatwo (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - June 2009

[edit]

Lolicon edit

[edit]

Un you said that me adding "Underaged" as a requirement for Lolicon was based on Artistic Appearances and Neoteny"? Um...Lolicon is mostly Underaged Characters. I mean what adult looks like a child, wears child cloths, and acts like a child?! Unless the Character has Turner Syndrome then COmmon Sence and Logicital Reasoning can only lead one to say that the character is a child. I mean its not fair really to mislead people. I've seen a LOT of Lolicon. The Characters are underaged. So...--Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pedophilia

[edit]

If this article is on your watchlist and you check your watchlist, then you will know that I responded to your comments toward me there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels - Coordinator Election

[edit]

Hello. To begin, every member of WikiProject Novels will be getting this message (the joy of macros) so if you wish to get in touch with me, please post a message on my talk page. I would encourage anyone who so wishes, to stand in the Coordinator Elections. If you wish to stand, please do so by 23:59pm, June 27. Voting will the continue to 23:59pm, July 21. Can everyone please check-out the Coordinator Elections page. Also, the collaboration of the month is The Tin Drum, so if you have any spare time, please check it out. And I apologise to the seven of you for whom this will be a repeat message. Regards, Alan16 (talk). 02:28, 24 June 2009

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

[edit]

Oidesu?

[edit]
No. I left a note on East's talk, making it clear that I have never been banned from this site. L is not an administrator, and the person who owns that account has a historical tendency of stating their own prejudice as fact, so that hardly surprises me. Especially given the times the two accounts were set up, and the history of speculation as to user-linking on similar articles - it's easy to see how someone so prone to cognitive dissonance could make that assumption.
As I was already aware that the article talk I was commenting on was the kind of intellectual void where it was excusable for an administrator to accuse you of being a pedophile, I had set up a secondary account to comment on the article. I frequently do this on articles where my comments are likely to compromise my integrity in ways unjustifiable (guidelines allow for it). And in my book, that includes stalking administrators with a known fetish for wild accusations, agenda-pushing and witch-hunting. This is the first time that such an account has been banned. Yaccinthe (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator election

[edit]

Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice. 3 users are standing:

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

July 2009

[edit]

The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

[edit]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring talk pages

[edit]

Tyciol, I must insist that you stop refactoring talk pages as you add your comments to them, such as you did with Touch and [4]. This is entirely unnecessary and makes it difficult to see what comments you did leave. --Farix (Talk) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the simple fact is that you should stop refactoring talk pages. There is nothing wrong with the talk pages to begin and nothing needs to be "fixed". --Farix (Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But almost all of your "refactoring" that I've seen has been to remove whitespace between comments and in section heading. Whitespace that, in many cases, was included to separate comments from each other. I've also seen you merge multiple paragraphs into one, which you should absolutely not do. These are not refactorings to help clarify who is replying to whom. These are frivolous edits that you should stop immediately. And frankly, if I see it again, I'll revert on sight. --Farix (Talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Farix here. Simple stuff such as fixing indentation levels (as long as you have an absolutely clear grasp of the intended flow of the discussion) and correcting markup that otherwise breaks the page's display is generally fine, but changing spacing between comments (and "fixing" cursing) are both changes that should not be made on talk pages. If you intend to reorder discussions so that they go from oldest to newest, as they should, this needs to be done in its own edit, where you don't change *anything* else on the talk page, and it needs to have a very clear edit summary. I would completely disagree with year headers of *any* type like the ones you added to Talk:List of The Prince of Tennis characters - if a talk page is so long that such headers would be useful for navigation, it should instead be archived, since there is generally no good reason to add new comments to any discussion more than a few months old. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages and names

[edit]

Hi--I've noticed that you're creating lots of disambiguation pages lately, and adding people with Japanese names to them; e.g., "Katsuo" and "Tanabe". I'd like to request that you take a look at MOS:DABNAME. In general, partial name matches are not considered to be appropriate entries for disambiguation pages; if you take a look at the Smith disambiguation page, for example, there are no people with the surname on that page. In at least a few cases, you've also added people when the previous redirect to something like a major city would otherwise be considered the primary topic of the search term. For example, Takamatsu, Kagawa is the capital of Kagawa Prefecture and has a population of over 400,000, making it the primary topic of the search term "Takamatsu" over Takamatsu Shinji, who doesn't merit his own article at the moment (although I like Gintama). Please keep these things in mind when creating new disambiguation pages in the future. Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

I saw that a month back you began taking red linked names (actors, voice actors, etc.) and began turning them into redirects for whatever particular television series you found that they were a part of. This is not helpful. I went to look up the actress Rin Asuka and found that you had made a redirect to List of Higurashi no Naku Koro ni characters because she was in that show. It is better to have red links than redirects that are not helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is better than nothing because it gives some information about the person. If I only know about one series they have been in then I direct to that series. If someone notices that someone has worked for more than one thing then with 2 notable things someone has participated in I think that is enough grounds to create an article about the person. I didn't have the time to do any googling for Rin Asuka to find out if she had done anything else. Since you were looking for her, do you know of any other things she has acted in which have articles here? I am definitely interested in upgrading this from a redirect into a full article about the actress. I think this is better than just deleting it. If you would tell me how you found out about her and wanted to look for her then we could use that to create an article.
If there is not actually an article about a person then people should not make their name into a link. Redirecting the person's name to where they are mentioned on Wikipedia (a notable role) is good, but linking to their name when there's no article (creating a red link) and just leaving it would not be good. Shouldn't the dispute be with the person who made it into a link without checking if something was there first? Anyway, I'll take the initiative to do a little research about her to create an article. When people bring this to attention it is good because it encourages article creation. I would like to take similar steps with other actresses. The redirects are basically a starting point for an article, something I would link to once the article is fully realized. Tyciol (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not aware what the purpose of the red link is. That is why I linked you to WP:Red link, a policy/guideline/whatever on Wikipedia. Having these actors who could possibly get into more notable roles (as I believe Rin Asuka has done, I just need to see if it is the same Rin Asuka) have their articles as red links is more useful than having them as redirects to articles that have absolutely nothing about them other than one role they portrayed. That is why these redirects you ahve created are useless to the project. At least users can see where the red link goes and comes from using Special:Whatlinkshere rather than have one page that is not about them define them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I started off Rin Asuka. I can't find any information on whether or not she has done anything since the 2 Higurashi movie adaptations. I found listing of some previous work on IMDB but none of them have articles. Some other films are listed on this asian wiki but I couldn't post a link to that (must be a banned site) so I fact-tagged those until they can be confirmed. What work do you think she's done since then? It's possible that IMDB hasn't been updated yet, if we could find some news articles maybe? Anyway, I wouldn't call the redirects 'useless' to the project, but I can see your point about how a red link can be more useful due to the 'what links here' feature. I will consider this in the future and see if any other articles also link to the red link first, that way if more than one does I will try to create the article. It is just that a lot of people only get a single role so in cases like that (not saying Rin Asuka is) if someone is interested in the significance of the name they'd be able to find information. A lot of people's names aren't red links, and in those cases (especially fictional characters) it makes sense to redirect to where they're described right? Tyciol (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you looked at the Japanese Wikipedia pages for these actors, it will be a lot easier to start off their articles. Rin Asuka is here. There are many more roles listed there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to leave that up to those who can read Kanji, I'm still only literate in English at the moment :( Pretty much have to rely on the bilinguals. Tyciol (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a way to get more information. For example, I've found her birthdate, place of birth, and other roles she's been in. IMDB is a sucky way to get information on Japanese only actors.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah true, IMDB is mainly just a start (and an English site I can understand and something that can be listed as an external link). I'm glad you were able to find some info from the Japanese wikipedia article on her. Being able to consult that would be useful for adapting things into English Wikipedia. It's hard to enter them though since the articles are in Kanji. Do you think they may have redirected their Romanized/Romaji names to the kanji for retrieving stuff like birth dates? Even then, I am not sure if I'm allowed to list sites in Japanese as a source. I have seen that on some articles but usually people post a translation if possible. Also, for discussing her we can probably do it on the talk page now (thanks for expanding it). Tyciol (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they usually do not use Romanized names. And you can always rely on Google's translation tool to kinda understand what the pages say. Anyway, in the future, redirects bad red links good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tyciol, please have a look at Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make. In this case, these redirects are even worse than a single-sentence article, since they can't provide any information on the subject, and the redirects may lead people to believe that they were originally articles that were later merged. These redirects are more harmful than redlinks would be (and please change your attitude towards redlinks; they should not be discouraged except for very specific circumstances). Redlinks encourage article creation, while bluelinks (especially where they are merely redirects) discourage people from taking the time to research a subject and contribute to its article here (or to expand it past a redirect). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I fully understand the logic of this. Redirects aren't sentences, of course not. Rather, they're code. Code which I use to direct people to an article which already mentions a subject. In the majority of cases (like an obscure actor) someone will find that person's name listed in the cast. They will find out what role the person played, sources of information about the movie (it's popularity, region). These are launching grounds on locating information about a person. Since the articles redirected to are longer than a sentence, I do think that it is more beneficial than a single sentence. Other people have already provided information: they've explained why the name is notable at all (establishing notability is one of the major hurdles of starting an article about a person, redirecting to something notable is a good introduction to this).
I don't quite see how blue links or redirects discourage contribution or expansion. If someone has a mind to create or expand something they will. Whenever redirected there is always the button at the top to click to go to the source without redirecting and to change it, if someone wants to create an article. This is a basic skill and something it would be valuable for editors to figure out how to do. Frequently, I expand other people's redirects (if not into a full article, sometimes into a disambig) and even expand my own redirects. I think if someone finds a name they think is important just redirected they will think "hey, this person deserves an article, how dare they not give them their own!" and it will push them to do research on the person and help create a great article in the future. I think people are apprehensive about starting off articles ("what should this article look like? Will I get in trouble for starting it" and more apt to create one that was initiated as a redirect. I think I can understand both perspectives here... basically whether or not blue/red encourages/discourages may depend on the sort of way an editor thinks about topics. Tyciol (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring so much to the "one sentence" aspect as I was the blue link aspect. I'm perfectly aware redirects aren't sentences. I have to disagree with your opinion that redirects don't discourage further contributions, as well. If a visitor with some knowledge of a given voice actor visits Wikipedia and sees that voice actor's name as a link and then clicks it, only to be redirected to a page on a tangientially related topic (and, oftentimes, to a specific section of that page), they probably aren't going to understand that they were redirected, much less be able to figure out how to get back to the redirect page, or that they can replace the stub article with a redirect once they do get there. Unfortunately, it's also not likely that they'll know or be able to figure out where to go to get help with it. In short, having redirects doesn't discourage contributions so much as present technical hurdles to potential contributors. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyciol, please please don't make any more of these "Huh???" redirects. On Runaway Horses about half of the links are now circular! Please leave the valid red links alone! Xanthoxyl (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]
Hello, Tyciol. You have new messages at WacoJacko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

13:39, 18 July 2009

Hi!

[edit]

I answered your post on my talk page! Lyrical Israfel (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Software IRC

[edit]

For better and faster discussion between WikiProject Software Members a IRC channel has been created: irc://irc.freenode.net/##WikiProject-Software. For instant access click here: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##WikiProject-Software. Please use your Wikipedia nickname. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Software or one of its departments. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

[edit]

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD bulk nominations

[edit]

Please consider refactoring your recent RfD nominations into a single entry listing multiple redirects. The compactness and readability will aid discussion. -- Thinking of England (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the above comment. It was intended for me. Xanthoxyl (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry about that. -- Thinking of England (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fighting Spirit (manga)

[edit]

You were already asked to stop doing this, simply add your reply and stop reformatting past discussions. --Farix (Talk) 22:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you simply do not reformat other peoples comments. Fix the order of the threads is one thing, but refactoring comments, especially old comments, is not acceptable. Besides, I've already warned you that I will revert these refactoring of comments on sign if you continue to do them. --Farix (Talk) 00:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't remove excess whitespace. Excess whitespace is two or more blank lines, and event that should be "fixed" sparingly. It is not merging of paragraphs, removing double spacing, and removing spacing in section headers. There is absolutely no reason to change those EVER! --Farix (Talk) 11:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this very clear. There is no legitimate reason to be refactoring other editors comments in the way that you have. Especially for comments more then a month old. Just leave their comments alone no matter how much the spacing annoys you. --Farix (Talk) 15:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPOC, as you will see, except for a few specific circumstances, editing and refactoring other peoples comments is discouraged. --Farix (Talk) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reformating that you have been doing is hardly what I call minor. Just be advice that I will continue to revert any time I see you excessively refactoring other editors' talk page comments again. If you continue to insist, I will get administrative involved for mediation. --Farix (Talk) 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've noticed from your most recent edits that you appear to be stalking me by comment to other editors I have interact with over vandalism. If you don't stop, this will be reported to the administrators. --Farix (Talk) 01:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - July 2009

[edit]

The July 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16(talk)

ANI notice

[edit]

Hello, Tyciol. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your instance at reformatting talk pages despite doing so against consensus.. The thread is Tyciol's talk page reformating. Thank you. --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Link was broken when I tried Aug 1 so I checked the history and found 3 entries, Farix, HalfShadow, Flatscan. there was some other one but even though it had the title in it the edit was weird, so if there were more than 2 replies, not sure where this topic is now. Oh wait found it. Was looking in the wrong archive. It looks like these were the only relevant ones indeed, the other one with the heading was misheaded. Tyciol (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

[edit]

Hi Tyciol/2009,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

[edit]

Redirecting

[edit]

Hi, again. I just found several more redirects you had made before I had contacted you initially.

Let me be frank, do not make redirects to cast lists or character lists again for real people. I'm getting a bunch of these deleted because they really serve no purpose and red links are much better. I have seen that you are continuing to do this when red links may actually convince people to write the real articles. I don't want to discuss this with you, again, so this is my last message to you unless I come across more redirects you have made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, this is the thread (Archived) I started at WP:ANI about this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just deleted many more of these, plus assorted other unhelpful redirects that you created. Please don't create redirects to non-notable items, and redirects that are unlikely search terms. Thank you. Black Kite 10:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother reading through the four paragraphs you sent me. I'll say this: your redirect creation was bad and it has been determined by administrators and other members of the community that it was bad. You took common Japanese names like Masayuki or Kotaro and made redirects or disambiguation pages solely dedicated to the fictional characters and then you took random combinations of English names and made redirects. Red links are much more effective which is what I told you last time, because it does not matter if an article is made or not. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ALL OF THE REDIRECTS YOU MADE. I don't care if there are or are not articles on these people on either this or the Japanese Wikipedia. There is no need to take their given name and surname or their full name and redirect it to a tangentially useful article. If living people exist, and we have no article on them, then we have no page on them, which includes not having a redirect. When they become notable or someone else comes across the red link, an article can be created.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your comments at ANI because they were all over and comprised about 5k of characters. Instead of responding all over the thread willynilly, just respond at the bottom in something that isn't essay length.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuchun is an example of one of your bad redirects. "Yuchun" is a given name in China, and I can find multiple people listed on Wikipedia who have this name. That is why it should not be a redirect to Li Yuchun. It is equivalent to taking Michael and making it a redirect to Michael Jackson or Takeru and making it a redirect to Takeru "T.K." Takaishi. And there are other examples I could find, like your mashing together of names for other redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Takeshi Kobayashi and Kobayashi Takeshi are also examples of bad redirects. He's a lyricist. He's in no way related to Haruka Ayase.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what the fuck is Asakeshi?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say it plainly. A supermajority of the redirects you have made are implausible names, not typos, and have nothing to do with the pages to which these are redirected. All of them should be deleted. Do not make redirects for anything other than fictional characters to the lists of fictional characters. Portmanteaus are useless and making redirects for real people to people who they are not or films in which they starred are not helpful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a search engine for you to fine tune. I do not want a two paragraph reply to this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not get it? That's a bad redirect. Stop making redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop? No one is going to be looking up "Elton Hercules", "David Charles Cunningham", "Ishii Leslie", or "Tsunehiko Kamijo".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want psychic powers too! I better go get Miss Cleo to teach me. Hm, well I totally made a statement bout Elton, let's see how that turns out then I can review the other 3 to see if I can adequately explain my meaning for'm. Tyciol (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Tyciol. You have new messages at Bettia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]
  • If they're character names that have a section in a "List of ... characters" section then that's fair enough. If they're minor non-notable characters that are just mentioned in the text, then they don't need one. Same for minor plot points, organisations in fiction, etc.
  • Linking people's names who don't have an article to places where they're a minor character etc. is confusing for editors who may want to create an article on a genuinely notable person of that name.
  • If someone's name is "Steven James Smith", then he doesn't need the redirects "Steven James" and "James Smith" unless they're well-known by one of those names. And they certainly don't need those redirects clogging up hatnotes and dab pages, that's completely misleading for the reader. You'll note that a lot of these were reverted by other editors before this subject was raised.
  • Linking common surnames to an article isn't worthwhile unless that person is known by their surname only, and I found examples where you linked surnames to one article where there were more than one person with that name, so it should've been a dab. I even found one example (Bavin) where you linked a common surname to a completely irrelevant subject.
  • Some of the redirects are even WP:BLP, for example the one I found linking minor people who were involved in a murder case to the murderer's article.
  • Linking redlinks back to the article they're already in is creating a circular redirect and shouldn't be done.
  • Black Kite 11:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Okui

[edit]

I completely disagree with you. We have the Atushi dab page so anyone looking for her will find that in the search box, or they will use google. If and when there is sufficient sourcing to make an article about her then that will be created. Redirecting a person to a small portion of their work seems illogical to me and I agree with the criteria that it was speedy deleted under. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Implausible is a very good word for it in this case. I think it is implausible that someone who is looking for information on a person will be placated with a link to a film they worked on once. I think they would prefer to see a red-link then be misled by a redirect to a film. It is not the only film she worked on, it does not define her as a person and it does not add to a reader's understanding in any way other than a short sentence saying she worked on the film. Woody (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to "add more data" find sources on her and create an article not a redirect. It is clear you disagree with my thinking, but it is clear from the ANI discussion that quite a few people agree with mine. If she isn't notable enough then she shouldn't be linked. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woody: if she should not be linked, then perhaps take her off any disambiguation pages I added her to or something. But that has nothing to do with redirects. Creating a redirect doesn't create a link, rather it directs a user to information about the person in question if a link is later created by somebody else. That people agree with you is not of interest to me: WHY people agree with you is. If other people make good arguments supporting why this is correct, that's cool. The thing is: I don't know if she's notable enough to create an article about her.
The objection to these redirects by Ryulong is that he thinks articles will later be created about these people. Therefore: he's the one suggesting articles be made about them, not me. As far as I know, when I redirect an unknown name to a work of fiction that they've done, as far as I know that's all they've done. Now, if they're listed on another page and a link is made to them, someone will follow that to the other work and think "hey, that's wrong, it shouldn't redirect to one or the other, but have a page which links to both". At that point, a person (often me, as I have upgraded these as I learn about subsequent notability) expands the redirect into an article about the person. Having a history as a redirect, it provides an already-existing link in the source so one has less work to do when creating that article. The history also shows the long-term interest that has existed in that person, which attracts better scrutiny by speedy-delete happy people who might otherwise rapidly delete a voice actress stub. Tyciol (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-creating illogical redirects

[edit]

I'll be quite clear about this. Some of your redirects are fine, some are debatable (and those can be discussed) - ones like this are utterly useless. Here's a Google search for "Elton Hercules" without his surname - no results at all. It looks like you're unaware how Western-style names and honorifics are used. You are making work for other users who have better things to do, and I would have thought, given the number of users who have expressed similar opinions here and on AN/I, that you would know better than to immediately recreate these. So - if you start re-creating more obviously pointless redirects like Elton Hercules, I will block you for disruption. Black Kite 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyciol, you wrote "For names that seem unusual like 'Bavin' I redirect under the assumption they are unique names (as many fictional and real famous people do create, their own names). If other people share the name, this does not eliminate the usefulness of a redirect."
If a user types in the single word "Bavin", it is not clear what they want. So they are provided with a Search page, showing where in the encyclopedia the word Bavin appears and giving the context. The Search page GIVES THE USER A CHANCE TO CHOOSE, whereas the redirect forces them in one (possibly wrong) direction. Disambiguation pages are created only if there is a serious logjam of possibilities, because they must be maintained: otherwise they may accidentally hide the very article the user is looking for. Furthermore, creating a redirect changes a red link into a blue one, fooling people into thinking that an article has been created when it has not. It is far, far better that there should be NO article than a phantom article. The system works as is, and your redirects are breaking it! Xanthoxyl (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"What I am denying is that the solution is to delete it. The solution is to create a disambiguation page." No, in that case you (not other people) must create the disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Which means searching Wikipedia (and Google) for every important instance, and creating a well-formed page which follows the MOS. If you don't, other editors have to chase you all over the place trying to unhide all the possibilities which your redirects have hidden. The slapdash redirects are worse than nothing. If you still don't understand then please just concentrate on contributing text and forget about #R and dab. Xanthoxyl (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I will not forget about R/DAB, sorry, I know too much about it, an I'm very good at making both of them." Tyciol, you created about a dozen circular redirects on just one page! If you don't have time to make disambiguation pages, you certainly don't have time to type thousands of words in defence of these silly redirects. Are you sure you don't have editcountitis? Xanthoxyl (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A redirect can be circular, but one person cannot make a redirect circular unless he makes both the link on the page and the link back to the page. I only make the link back to the page." Okay, I give up. Xanthoxyl (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirs

[edit]

Tyciol, I am sorry that you have taken offence, but there is no-one on the PLANET who would search for Elton Hercules when looking for Elton John, and given that you put a hatnote on Sir Hercules - which is a racehorse - on the assumption that someone somewhere might search for Elton John by looking for Sir Hercules, then I can only suggest that your grasp of English naming conventions is not as sound as you think it is. And don't stalk me either - if you have something to say to me, say it on my talkpage Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll call it what I like thank you - the wikilink confirms what I'm talking about. And there is no knight called Hercules. You just really, really do not understand English naming conventions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw any suggestion of accusing you of stalking, wikistalking or hounding me. It was said in haste, and I regret not being more careful with my words as I can see how it would give offence, particularly as (in calm moment) I can see that it is not in any way justified. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, redirecting Sir John to Elton John is totally illogical. True, Elton John has been called Sir John, but so has Sir John Gielgud (stage actor) Sir John Barbirolli (conductor) Sir John Harvey-Jones (industrialist) John de Balliol (Scottish King) Sir John Betjeman (poet) Sir John Mills (film actor) Sir John Major (prime minister) Sir John Fastolf (Falstaff) Sir John Falstaff (Shakespearian character) Sir John Hawkins (admiral, one of Elizabeth I's seahawks) Sir John Herschel (astronomer)....and so it goes for 53970 returns for Sir John in the search. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not illogical. I did not know of other Sir Johns. Had I known of them I would have improved it into a disambig. Rather than complain about it to get me blocked, had you requested I improve it, I would have. This would make a fine subsect for the John disambiguation page. Tyciol (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why did YOU (yes you) not use the search to find out how many Sir Johns there are instead of just creating that totally ridiculous redirect? It takes less than 30 seconds to type "Sir John" in the search box and see what comes back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember my state of mind at the time, I sometimes get really caught up in editing and lose track of time so even obvious stuff like that doesn't occur. That is something I do need to improve upon. I still hold the objection that for some names, it simply is not very obvious (like names which look very rare, made up, fictional) and objections to those don't hold. But yeah, with Sir John (and probably also Sir Paul, Paul's probably not as common in England in John but there's bound to be another Sir Paul). That said: How many other Sir Eltons or Sir McCartneys are there? Those also got deleted, but while I could see another Elton possibly, probably not another Sir McCartney. Now, I am familiar with naming convention (Sir#Formaly styling: I know that listing Sir McCartney is not the proper way to name a knight. But I think it is a valuable disambiguation because other people may not be familiar with proper convention. It might also be used in modern contexts other than English knighthood. Tyciol (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

[edit]

Do not refactor talk pages or entire pages as you've done at Talk:United States and stop making redirects. You've been warned about this multiple times over the past five days. If you do not get why we have an issue, that certainly does not mean you should continue acting in the way you had.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you do not edit the archives to get your last word in.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have an authority to tell me not to refactor talk pages, refactoring pages is useful for reading. You don't have the authority to tell me to stop making redirects. I have already explained WP:NOEDIT. I am open to changing HOW I edit, but will not simply stop editing altogether. I have been changing the method in which I edit, and have even avoiding the family names redirecting like you have suggested. As for archives: I am familiar with the policy on not editing article talk page archives, but not with policies surrounding the editing of archives for Wikipedia policy. Considering how these get archived in less than a week, there is an inadequate amount of time given for discussion. I can't help it if I'm unable to reply the day before it is locked away, so that's why I was asking if you wanted to start another topic or something. I would have been fine had you moved that reply out of the archive to the main page, I just didn't want to start a new topic myself, because I'm not sure what authority one needs to open an incident's report. I'll need to look more into it because I am not as familiar with incident reporting as the other people. Tyciol (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you get it yet. The community is telling you to stop refactoring talk pages and making stupid redirects. You won't get unblocked until you agree that YOU (yes you) are the problem, and even then, you are likely to be banned for good from making redirects and dab pages (see ANI). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate summary: 'people' in the community are telling me to stop it, yes. The community itself: no. First off: my redirects are not 'stupid'. Nobody has ever made a valid argument demonstrating stupidity. There are objections regarding interference with search and misleading disambiguation with others who may share a name, or interference with red links which may encourage new articles, along with some unsupported thing about name fragments. I have already agreed that I have identified some problems with my editing habits that have led me to make some mistakes. However: many of my edits are smart. I still stand by Lubdan, it's a great example of how because of some mistakes, misunderstandings and disagreements about certain kinds of redirects that people have simply assumed all (or even the majority) of them are bad, when actually nobody has really looked at a significant number of them. Furthermore: talk page refactoring and redirects are 2 entirely different issues, so I would prefer to keep discussion of them separate please. They may be 2 problems I need to reach an understanding about, but I don't see any sort of crossover between the objections. Tyciol (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Blocked for disruption as discussed on your talk page and ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Given the number of edits you have done (over 5000 [5]), and the speed at which you have done them, as well as your apparent lack of understanding, I've changed your block to indefinite. This is in the interest of Wikipedia because it would be senseless to simply let the block expire after a week and let you come back and continue your activities. It is not a punitive block because you can easily get it lifted by demonstrating that you understand the reasons why a number of editors objected to your edits and that you agree to change your behavior, so hypothetically you could get unblocked today.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tyciol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe the block is unjustified

Decline reason:

Having read through all of this page, all of the WP:AN/I thread and a good percentage of your edits, it is quite clear that the block is absolutely not unjustified. And until you accept that this is so, and agree to modify your behaviour in accordance with comments made about your redirect and disambig technique, there is little chance of an unblock. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I was warned that I was being disruptive: but I disagreed with that, and I still do. Creating good redirects is not disruptive. No adequate reasons are given (nor thoroughly discussed) for the deletion of many redirects. Elton Hercules in particular, I recreated and listed on RfD (see here because it was never given a chance for discussion. Too much good faith is being put into the actions of speedy deletion taggers, and too little faith in the creators of redirects. I can see that User:Redvers deleted that simply with the same speedy deletion tag. Once again: no actual investigation (or at least, explanation of it) is presented, simply citing the standard reason associated with a tag, even though it is not at all applicable. I clearly proved the plausibility of the disambiguatory redirect through posting a URL on the above RfD.

I do not understand how 'the number of edits' is reason for blocking. Furthermore, when you link to Ryulong's list: did you check the dates when they were made? The first one (Urine Therapy) was made in 2005, so I am not sure how going back 4 years in time is good for making a case for 'speed'. That's clearly a good redirect, as you can see someone even tagged it as a redirect which disambiguates capitalization here. I made it because there are references to it which are capitalized.

Should I go on and explain each one? I think this should be evidence enough: that list is not appropriate in the slightest for making a case against me: most likely Ryulong just pasted every redirect of mine in there and assumed it was bad. This is incredibly clear to me: his list even includes entries like Lubdan which he has posted his ridiculous speedy deletion tags on and had administrators remove them. I could search through that list and point out probably at least a dozen which admins have turned down for speedy deletion. Why on earth would the total number of my redirects matter? What should matter are the contested redirects, so until someone can make a list of those so that I can actually confront them, I don't see how I am supposed to contest these accusations.

So: what am I supposed to learn from this list? I am aware I've made a lot of redirects, but I believe the great majority are useful. It's possibly I've made some mistakes but I consider myself a well-intentioned editor with some degree of competancy. It is true that I have been making increasing amounts of them, this is mainly as I grow to understand more about disambiguation and redirecting, and how I become more imaginative in predicting the various mistakes and ommissions that people can make.

I do have understanding of redirect policy. I have had disagreement over some concepts: but these are different issues. I would prefer if these were discussed distinctly: as in, rather than a huge list of 'bad' redirects, objectors can divide them into which specific objections they have. From what I recall: there's the family name issue (other people have it, should be disambig instead of redirect to single person), and then there's the issue over the use of subsequent names which nobody else shares (EH as above), which are unique to a person but someone says 'nobody would ever type it' therefore it's somehow disruptive? That, despite my having made a case for forenames being good disambiguation and giving a reference.

I would appreciate it if people would actually discuss these issues and clarify what I'm to understand: I have not been ignoring the objections, however I am I supposed to understand that I should back down from discussing an important issue? I do have some level of understanding of the issue (I have highlighted 2 of the objections, which I have understood). Before I agree to change my behaviour: I want to make sure I am not overlooking any other issues. I still want to discuss them, but this concept of 'implausibility' is something which I think needs expansion. Where do these views get heard? I am fine with agreeing to avoid doing them, but I think if editing is this restricted then Wikipedia policy should reflect it.

In the very least, Wikipedia policy currently does NOT reflect on not being able to redirect name fragments. Another editor agreed (and was ignored): redirects are cheap. There aren't any other Elton Herculeses. Elen completed ignored the URL given in her reply. Jeni made no reply at all, simply mirroring the 'implausible' which people are tagging: replies like that are utterly useless to informing editors. Xanthoxyl had already targeted these before and made an inapt comparison: there are other Martin Luthers, there aren't any other known Elton Herculeses, therefore the comparison was misleading and not an argument at all. I do think the editors have a point about researching family names: I should look more into last names and stuff like 'Sir John' as she's suggested, that's something I'll try to make an effort on in the future.

I sort of get into a bit of a vibe when I look up theoretical disambiguations that even with something obvious like Sir John (John's a common english name) I didn't even think to look for others. I believe I ran through the knights of the round table and didn't remember any Johns so I thought it would be fine (editing on a low sleep can create illogical leaps like that). So: if allowed to edit I will try to edit in a clearer state of mind where I am more likely to notice mistakes like that, and spend some more time concentrating on redirects to consider whether or not (via using the search function) a disambiguation would be more appropriate to create.

That said: I can't claim that disambiguation pages will be perfect from the start. Not every person in the world is easily found via the search. However, getting one started with the first page or two of information is good, right? Then people can add other Sir Johns (or what not) as they learn of them. In some cases articles about people are created after disambugiation pages for their family name so ongoing maintenance of disambigs is inevitable. Tyciol (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

[edit]

From WP:DISAMBIG "Preparation: Before constructing a new disambiguation page, determine a specific topic name for all existing pages, and the name for the disambiguation page. Move any page with a conflicting title (i.e., the same exact title) to its more specific name. Use the What links here list for the moved page to update pages that link to that page." Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are excellent guidelines for disambig pages, it's also the first time anybody's brought something like that up. I can't remember if I read it, I think I did but probably lost track of the importance of doing that. People do need reminders of guidelines. I know from the many disambigs I've looked at (and needed to add to, because they're not extensive enough) that people don't thoroughly follow these guidelines when creating them. This is why they receive large amounts of subsequent work over time by other users: we fill in for each other's gaps in knowledge or research ability. So what am I 'wrong' about here? I'm not saying I'm a perfect disambiguator, just that like many others, I'm trying to do my part to get them started at least (so that others more competant can assist in perfecting it) and to help improve ones that exist. Since when is imperfect editing wrong? I'm learning (or relearning in some cases) a lot from this experience so I think if I'm unblocked I'd do some quality work. At the moment I'm looking through Ryulong's list and picking out redlinks. I can see he has started paying more attention in which he attacks because in some cases character names are left alone whereas family names are removed. Those family names are a great list of potential disambiguation pages in which I can spend some thorough time on each one using search to find people with that name. I have learned that I shouldn't just settle for a redirect in cases like names. Even for names which look strange to me and I think nobody else has just because there's no redirect for it yet, I shouldn't make the assumption. So, I will disambiguate for any other articles which have that name in the title (or which are the person's real name or otherwise known as). Tyciol (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re Elton Hercules, the URL of that page is Elton Hercules (né Reginald Kenneth Dwight) JOHN.aspx ie his full current name plus his birth name. You don't seem to have realised that it is not referring to him as "Elton Hercules". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look beyond just the URL: on the actual page, Elton Hercules is definitely listed alone. John is on a completely different area, it's not listed consequentially. Making Elton Hercules and Reginald Kenneth Dwight makes more sense than making Elton Hercules (né Reginald Kenneth Dwight). Tyciol (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway

[edit]

I got a bit of a tendency to ramble, so I'll be more concise: I would like to be unblocked so I can go back and correct some mistakes. Basically, I went through Ryu's list and found the red links. I don't intend to create all of them: rather, I'm going to try and figure out which are plausibly useful (such as creating disambiguation pages through the use of the search engine for family names that could refer to multiple people) and put some work into doing some edits of higher quality. As for the rest: I'll maintain it and section it into the various problem areas which have been identified (implausible redirects based on portmanteaus, the omission of periods, some of which I think are strongly likely and others which I admit, do not seem as likely at second glance). One thing I am wondering: to get a fresh start and put this behind me and make it easier for people to follow new work, would it be possible to start a second account? I'm not interested in evading a ban or sock-puppeting, but rather as per WP:MULTIPLE listing the association on both because I have a good reason of wanting to turn over a new leaf and make edits of lower quantity and higher quality. This has built up bad blood and I'm wondering if I could have a new start with User:Ty or something like that. This would minimize the difficulty of people who want to monitor new edits for quality and stuff. Tyciol (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that [6], the online Debretts entry for Elton John, has a section marked Forename, in which the words Elton Hercules (né Reginald Kenneth Dwight) appear, and a section marked Surname, in which, not surprisingly, the word John appears. Right below the section marked surname, is a section marked Style. For the benefit of Tyciol, I can advise that 'style' in this context means 'the proper way to address this person'. In this section marked Style, it says Sir Elton John, CBE indicating that when referring to this person in polite company, this is how it is done.
Tyciol, just because in Europe and the US we customarily have forms that display all the user's forenames in one field, and the user's surname in another field, does not in any way indicate that there is any kind of custom of habitually referring to persons by all of their forenames without a surname. As you have been repeatedly told, the custom is to refer to the person by the forename that they habitually use, plus their surname. Where a person has received a knighthood in the UK, the custom is to refer to them by the Debretts style. Debretts verify with the person their choice of habitual forename, to ensure that their entry is correct. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has never been that EH is the proper custom in which to refer to him, just that it's a possibility and should be disambiguated since there's nobody else who'd be called EH. Your analysis would be perfectly correct were I to call him this in the article's text or something, but there is zero harm in redirecting what might show up on a form (or a partial reference) to it. For example, if you saw 'Elton' in a screencap or something, you'd have no idea which Elton, but if there was Elton Hercules, or you saw that on a list of forenames, it would head there. I would honestly not call Elton "Elton Hercules" unless I was trying to get a rise out of him (it might be funny, he's got a song named Hercules) but we don't just redirect terms which are common reference, but also about plausible partial matches, which include errors. There's a predominant focus on typo errors but I think we should also acknowledge those of ommission. Tyciol (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect?

[edit]

In your own words, from a deleted edit at Talk:Elton Hercules:

Apparently recreating this redirect for the third time is 'disruptive' and I've been threatened with blocking for it. But after being directed to a page about it, I am going to find the courage to risk that anyway, because this is important.

Clearly you knew these redirects were considered disruptive, clearly you knew you were likely to be blocked if you continued making them. You did continue, and you were blocked... now you act surprised? I don't understand. What exactly did you think was going to happen, here? That repeating problem behavior would suddenly make others more amenable? Why not use a more appropriate forum, like Wikipedia:Deletion review? Why not employ dispute resolution to build consensus for your position? It's not so much what you're doing, but how you go about it that led to a block here, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang I wish I could view that (admin only) but yeah I do recall writing that. One person told me that it was disruptive, that doesn't indicate that it actually is disruptive to the Wikipedia project. For example: I consider the unnecessary tagging and spurious deletion and recreation of my valid redirects to be disruptive, and have said so, but that doesn't mean they are disruptive PERIOD just because I happen to think so.
My violation of that warning was done because I honestly didn't think I would be blocked, because I was making a point: I wanted discussion of the redirect. I didn't know any way else to get it discussed. For future reference: am I even allowed to post something on RfD if it is not a redirect that's in existance? I guess I should have tried that instead, but I wasn't sure if my RFD would get deleted in that case. The thing is this: the RFD guidelines say that when you put something up for RFD that you need to put the template for it on the redirect in question, so I couldn't very well do that unless there was a page to put it on, right?
These other options are good, I should have done that. Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking about them. I am not as familiar as others with the intricacies of dealing with stuff like this. Also, I was a bit emotional, and I don't recall anyone suggesting I employ these options. Ryulong was courteous in notifying me about the incident board, which I appreciate, but when I was disputing the deletions it was not suggested I take it to deletion review. DR is something I associate with the deletion of article pages so it didn't occur to me to employ it for use in the discussion of deleted redirects. I had it in my mind that I should only discuss redirects on RfD, I was worried about creating drama by complaining elsewhere on the project.
I'll spend some time to read into WP:DR and WP:DRV as you've suggested. If I am unblocked then I should be more informed about these methods so that I can use them along with WP:RFD to solve disputes outside of article space. Unfortunately when people are ignorant of the proper outside routes to take (and disputes are sometimes carried on in edit summaries or article's talk pages, even redirects' talk pages) they're compelled to take the only means of fostering discussion they see available. Tyciol (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal 2

[edit]

Okay I'll do this in a new section.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tyciol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Some good reasons were explained to me on alternate ways besides recreating redirects for RFD discussion (such as deletion review). The 'unjustified' was more in response to the reasons posted for the block. Basically: making a lot of edits is not justification, but the objections to my creation of redirects in lieu of spending time on disambig was justified, so I would like to continue editing and this time be more thorough in using search first, especially for the last names of real people which are likely to have matches. As for partial names, I will avoid making those unless someone is clearly referred to as that, and continue discussing that in policy talk pages and attempt to form some consensus to confront objectors with, rather than making it a namespace issue. Basically changing from not necessary to no longer necessary as I do understand what's being asked, I just wanted clarification on the specific points of the ban because I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something (vague ban description). I should not: disambig family names instead of red, don't red partials, don't red portmanteaus, don't direct actors to pages unless their name is confirmed not to show up anywhere else on wiki (and even then avoid circulars by removing original link), to not put year categories on talk pages, to not continue incident report discussions after archived (I guess start new one instead), and to not indent OP's replies on talk pages and allow the back'n forth thing. I would like to post Mark-swoggle for deletion review though, it doesn't fit any of these already had 3 editors confirm this and add it to the page.

Decline reason:

Still waiting for you to give a proper response to User:Dougweller's comment above. Extremely long responses give me the impression that you don't really intend to respond. You should be aware that you are running out of chances, if you don't have the intention to give a real answer soon. Your talk page may be locked due to the lack of any sincere effort to comply with our policies. Your redirects seemed nonsensical to many people, and you don't seem to realize that. If you would promise to stop creating redirects, you might be unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

What sort of response would be proper? I thought this second one was. I identified as many objections as I could remember. I don't even know which the mod agrees with and which he disagrees with. How does writing a long response mean I don't intend to respond? I am being sincere, I'm sorry you don't recognize that.

I am already aware the redirects seem nonsensical (I do realize that, despite what you say) but many I have made do NOT seem nonsensical to mods who have saved them, do you want me to post a list?. I am fine promising to stop making them for a period of time, like the one week I was initially banned for, for example. If you would suggest a period of time, that's cool, but I won't leave it open-ended as that implies forever.

I don't think it's fair to ban me from forever making them when I do make good ones and understand what I did wrong in the bad ones. If I am making these unblock appeals too rapidly then I'll slow down, I'm totally fine just talking to the people so far until I come into an udnerstanding, it's just I'm not sure whether or not people read replies here since it doesn't pop up. Tyciol (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyciol, you've done a lot of good things for Wikipedia, and it would be a shame to see you disappear whether it be due to a block or just your own frustration. Since I'm not entirely clear on what happened with the redirects myself, I won't mention it, but why not just stop creating all redirects, even good ones, for the time being, and return to Wikipedia as a content editor? You can then talk over what problems we have with redirects as a user in good standing rather than being confined to this talkpage. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally fine with me, I already said above I'd be fine with temporarily stopping creating them. I just don't want to make a promise I'll be held to forever, because I do want an opportunity to again. Basically: who would I get permission from to start again? After all, I couldn't suddenly start again if I feared a ban even for an indisputable one. Anyway I contacted ArbCom so hopefully they can provide answers to stuff like that. I really just want what's disrupted succinctly clarified here so that I can agree to do it in the correct wording, because my attempt to guess at what's wrong seems to be missing something. Tyciol (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RVD

[edit]

For example: something I want to do now but can't which I think would be decent. Before I might have just redirected Szatkowski to Rob Van Dam. But even though it looks a rare name and I'd figure he's the only notable one with it, I use search and see besides him there's also a Henry, Henryk, Zygmunt, Charmayne, Deryck, Stanislaw, etc. so I would begin a disambiguation page for Szatkowski with a reasonable number of notable people found via search. This is what I have learned from Ryulong (and the same for first names). Doing this for a while is something I could do even while being restricted from redirects to show good intent here. As for a valid redirect, I think RvD to Ryan vs. Dorkman makes sense. As for a valid hatnote, putting one on RVD for RvD and also RV-D may be useful. Thoughts? Tyciol (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyciol, I want you to understand what the problem is, so you can be unblocked. I really do. But you are still not getting it. The purpose of a dab page is to differentiate between a set of Wikipedia articles that would all have the same title were it not for the need to disambiguate them (eg mercury the planet and mercury the chemical). Dab pages for people are only necessary where they have almost identical names, eg Philip Barker. WP:DAB specifically says:
A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. For example, Baltimore Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation) because it is not called "Zoo". Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi".
It follows that not only was there is no need for a dab page for Szatkowski, Sir John, Sir Paul, or the majority of dab pages you created - whether or not they eventually were kept - in a lot of cases what you want to do actually violates Wikipedia policy. You've done nothing yet to convince people that you understand this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting Baltimore Zoo under the zoo disambig isn't an edit I can imagine myself making. What sort of edit is comparable to that? First off, you don't need a disambig because Zoo#Modern era has a link to List of zoos, so it actually gets a main listing, or a link from a page linked on the main anyway. The Baltimore Zoo is actually called 'the zoo' since people always call the nearest zoo 'the zoo' but since there are countless numbers of zoos, they were moved to a 'list of' page. If there were not so many zoos, they would have been included on a disambig. Lists are created when disambiguation and stuff would get cluttered. It's like the next step after how disambigs get divided into categores, or how 'people named z' category gets moved to a 'z (surname)'. I am still not sure I see what the trouble is with disambiguating Szatkowskis, or with creating a list of knights with a given name. I can see how the need for them may not be as great as we have need for other things, but does working on things of lesser need violate policy? If someone says 'Szatkowski' that's certainly a risk of confusion since there are many people with the name, just like we disambiguate for all sorts of first and last names. Just look at Tom (name) for example, there's a list of people with the name, how's that different? Tyciol (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your second suggestion, you have got it the other wrong way round. There are actually four uses of RVD in an acronym which have articles in Wikipedia
Three or more uses requires a disambiguation page if you feel that disambiguation is required (personally I don't as these are only redirected acronyms). Your suggestion of using the same hatnote on more than one article was wrong. Sorry. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting acronyms is pretty important, especially when things are regularly referred to by them. It'd be different were it unusual acronyms, but I didn't coin any of these myself, they're all mentioned on the article. In this case, we have 2 notable science terms and 2 notable fictional entertainment ones. I certainly did miss one, so if the page had been created, you could have added that in, right? Transformer being the key noun it'd be odd for someone to omit that last T though, moreso than the 3 preceding words which are adjectives and more likely to be accidentally dropped in common description, but acronyms can certainly lose letters easily. Tyciol (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tyciol, what is your problem? What part of "a disambiguation page is not a search index" are you not understanding? If you redirect Szatkowski to a dab, YOU PREVENT PEOPLE SEARCHING FOR IT. That means you have to get EVERY instance of Szatkowski into the dab, otherwise PEOPLE WON'T BE ABLE TO SEARCH FOR IT. That is why you only use dabs where there is SERIOUS LIKELIHOOD of confusion. Not likelihood in your confused brain. Likelihood in the real world. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you don't think a page at Szatkowski listing people named Szatkowski would be a good idea? or are you just referring to his earlier idea of redirecting Szatkowski to RvD? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soap I think she's referring to having a dab at the page, not redirecting it to Rob's page, which I dismissed. That's an error I've learned from (though I still don't think it warrants blocking, nor deletion). The whole 'impedes search' seems like an outdated argument to me which I'd like to see go, but I'll have to do that through the proper channels, as for now I understand Ryu's suggestion of creating disambigs. But now I'm being told that even disambigs are bad and still enter the evil 'search index' route. I take that to mean not reference every page which contains a word (which is what the search engine returns, making it difficult for users to navigate) but only listing on disambig articles primarily about the word in question. Tyciol (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I'm talking about creating a dab at Szatkowski, not redirecting it to a dab. Furthermore, despite the allcaps, no: having a page with a word does not make it impossible for people to click the search button and use the search engine. We have disambiguations for all sorts of names, so it's pretty much policy that there's a likelyhood of confusing people with the same last name. I would appreciate avoiding personal attacks as well: my brain's not confused. There is clearly no criteria being measured here for 'seriousness' or 'likelyhood' when comparing various last names' use as disambiguation. Picking a random name: Bradshaw. A list of notable people with that surname, so why Bradshow and not Szatkowski? Show me the numbers here for 'likelyhood', or is this just weighing opinions and blocking those who think something's more likely? Tyciol (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tyciol, I do apologise. I have indeed confused matters - my fault entirely: I should refrain from posting unless I can give it my full attention. I have struck the last comment and will I think leave the answer to your question below to those who make better explanations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't think you're as confused as you think you are, because I think it's actually just the use of words used to express. For example, a disambig does prevent a search coming up when someone types something and presses enter, because the default is to choose 'Go' instead of 'Search' when pressing enter and Search only happens if there is no result from 'Go'. That's the criticism I think from Ryulong and I think some others supported that. It is a valid one, but it seems minor since people could always resort to clicking search anyway if at first the article they got from typing 'go' didn't work out. I figure the purpose of disambigs and go is to display results people think people may choose. We can remove very obscure disambigs, and also work heavily to expand limited disambigs in a fell swoop rather than rely on users to improve it bit by bit over time on an as-needed Samaratin basis. Feel free to post as much as you like, I react in perhaps an overly scrutinizing way when I feel on the defensive. Tyciol (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so gracious about it. I am aware (my family tell me on a regular basis) that I have an overly hectoring manner, and typed text makes it even worse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

[edit]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal 3

[edit]

I eventually plan to make a third appeal, but am seeking advice from the dispute resolution committee on how to word it, so I will not post the tag here yet for fear of talk page locking. This is a placeholder for the moment, if anyone has any advice on what issues I did not cover in the original block, that would be helpful. Summarizing this is useful as it is not clearly and shortly stated the issues. Tyciol (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email, but I don't think I have anything useful to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, that's unfortunate as I was hoping you would add a summarization of the block reasons other than 'as per' which is vague and confuses me. Tyciol (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Barack Hussein

[edit]

I don't check my Wikipedia much, and I don't quite recall making the redirect to Barack Obama. Probably came in the stage of my life when I was against Obama, then I kind of liked him, and now he's just straight disappointing. I really get irritated when people tag my work for speedy deletion, so please try to refrain from tagging the page. No one else has brought it up to an issue, and I don't think anyone cares ever since the election is over.

I'm pretty sure I've heard the name "Barack Hussein" used on Fox News here and there, but I'm more of a BBC guy even though I live in the United States. Nice talking with you. Chinese3126 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what you mean, partial names like this are plausible, just like Elton Hercules on the reference I used, but people don't care about that :( Tyciol (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone really type "Barack Hussein" into Wikipedia though? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 21:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Barack Hussein" is a special case: it's used by people who are advancing claims that President Obama is secretly a Muslim. I'm not aware of anybody else who has ever been referred to by the combination of their first and middle names. --Carnildo (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but it wasn't necessary for people to present evidence of that in the edit summary when creating this redirect. Furthermore, evidence was presented of 'Elton Hercules' being listed alone in the surname section of a reference notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, that should be grounds enough to create the surname redirect which I was blocked in response for responsibly making so that it could be discussed. Tyciol (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP Novels

[edit]

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force

[edit]
Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force
Wikipedia adsfile info – #190

Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{Wikipedia ads|ad=190}} -- Alan16 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter

[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

[edit]
The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 1 (September 2009)

Content

Monster Hunter Club

[edit]

This is an alternate reality game (though I'm not sure if it's notable) which could use a redirect, if anyone is curious. See 1/2/3. Also the surname Fusster only shows up on the Wikipedia article Monster Buster Club, so it seems like a logical redirect for the moment. Tyciol (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you were actually blocked for creating large amounts of unneeded and sometimes actively unhelpful redirects, I'd seriously suggest that asking for more of them to be created is not the best idea. Neither of those redirects are helpful - one refers to a non-notable game and the other to a surname of an incredibly minor character in a borderline notable article. Black Kite 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of 'unneeded' is an unproven one. There is no means of measuring 'need', it is relative to interest. If a name exists and it's been televised and has no other incarnation, it makes sense to help someone find information about it. The same applies to the game: a lower level of notability is required for redirects than is required for an article. This is apparent with lists of fictional characters, characters who are not notable enough to receive an entire page dedicated to them, but who are mentioned alongside others whom they share a common medium with. It is standard to redirect names of fictional characters to lists which have information about who they are. Both are helpful, and neither of these have anything to do with the sort of redirects I was blocked for. The blocker has still not at all explained specifically what the objections he has approved are, either. The issue I had with you was the redirection of partial names (having to do with listing 1st + middle or middle + last, I think, both of which have separate reasons I think are notable redirects), and the issue I had with Ryu was doing first or last names without using search to see if a disambig would be more appropriate (this would be the only one which could even be potentially 'actively unhelpful' and even then only so much as someone needing to click 'search' instead of 'go' or pressing enter. Tyciol (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the point. Say, for example, we don't have an article called "Fred Smith". Then someone notices that there's a very minor character in a video game with that name, so they create a redirect there. Now, every time someone searches for that name, they're taken to somewhere that probably isn't anything to do with what they were looking for - they'd be far better off going to the search screen which would still bring the article about the video game up as a result anyway. We need to give the user that flexibility. Also, if they were thinking about creating an article about a different Fred Smith, if they get moved somewhere else they've probably got no idea what to do, especially if they're a fairly new editor. The existence of redlinks is actively useful - we shouldn't be turning them all blue for no useful reason. Black Kite 15:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, I've already understood that in a case like this with more than one Fred Smith, rather than assuming that there are no other Fred Smiths (under the assumption it is an unusual name nobody else has) I should use the search and if there are others, make it a disambig. If in the case nothing shows up anywhere on Wikipedia besides the page describing a minor character, would it still be right to not redirect it in case there really is someone with the name? While there could be, and the person could be more notable than the minor character, if they're not yet on Wikipedia there's no means of knowing about them. If someone adds it later it would be possible to change the redirect into a disambig. What I definitely did learn is that I should use the search function first to make sure I am not removing easier access to alternate information before making a redirect, right? Would it be correct to assume it's appropriate when nothing else shows up for the name or similar name (trying alternate spellings in search and stuff too). Tyciol (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think you've got the general idea now. I've got a plan. How about you run any new redirects/dabs you're going to create past me first? If you're happy to do that, I'm quite happy to unblock you. Deal? Black Kite 23:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! It'd slow things down and since I'd have to compile reports the creation would be less spurious too. Also I want to redirect Kuso Miso to Kuso Miso Technique because that's really the only thing that refers to. Tyciol (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see a good reason to do that. If you put "kuso miso" in the box and hit GO, the first think that comes up (if you'll excuse the pun) is Kuso Miso Technique. Doesn't need a redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Who awaits the opinions of others.[reply]
I don't follow what you mean. Barack Obama is also the first thing that comes up when you do 'search' for Obama yet it still redirects there. I think it does need a redirect: that's exactly what it refers to. I mean, by this logic, we shouldn't ever redirect a term to an article if that article is the first thing that comes up in a search for the term? That doesn't make any sense to me. The whole point is to save people time and not bother them with needing to look at a search page when we can send them directly where they want to go. Tyciol (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Political leaders are frequently referred to only by surname, ergo redirecting Obama to Barack Obama will be a well used redirect from an extremely plausible search term to the only topic to which it could logically refer. Many people will put Obama in the box. All of them will want the article on the current POTUS. Kuso miso on the other hand is a Nipponese slang phrase which is used as part of the title of a porn manga, about which there is a Wikipedia article. The article title only partially translates the title of the manga (I presume this is how the manga is customarily referred to in the West). By all means one could create a redirect for the title in the original language to the article with the partially translated title, but creating a redirect for the slang phrase and pointing it at the article is a step too far, and unnecessary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinsley Grimes

[edit]

The article has been proposed for deletion. Fences&Windows 21:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, the actor seemed notable... ah well. It's not like I'd be able to contest that anyway but thanks for the courtesy FaW :) Tyciol (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

[edit]

Nintendo task force membership update

[edit]

It's that time again to update membership status with the Nintendo task force, which we try to do every 3-4 months to keep our membership up-to-date. All participants have been placed on an "Inactive participants" list. To confirm that you're still a member of the Nintendo task force, simply go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo#Members and move your name from the "Inactive participants" list to the bottom of the "Active participants" list. If you are no longer an active member in the task force, you may simply remove your name altogether. After 1 month, on October 1, all entries under the "Inactive participants" list will be removed. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Nintendo-related articles. Regards, MuZemike 18:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it will be possible to clear up these issues in a month so that I can get back to helping with various video game stuffs. Tyciol (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Köpcke//Koepcke

[edit]

There seem to be at least 2 alternative spellings for this family name. Various people seem to have it. I am not sure which would be proper to go with (maybe the 'e' since that o is hard to write) but it would probably make a valuable disambiguation page. I've been looking at various people with articles using the search function and would like to list them on such a page to help people who hear the name and may be looking for information about someone with that name but may have difficulty navigating the search pages for it. The reason for this is many articles mention the name, but on articles not about people with the name, such as actresses who have portrayed Juliane in movies, for example. Tyciol (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, maybe I am on to the proper way to do things then :) Tyciol (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah and do you know if there are resources for searching which of my article creations have been deleted? I lack the mastery of the system to do that, but instead of new frontiers I feel obligated to go back and fix mistakes. Like for example you deleted Go Zappa as an implausible redirect, I probably redirected that company name to one of the pages that exist for one of the manga they have published. That shouldn't be a red link because it should have an article about this company, so it would be good to upgrade the redirect into an article, but now I guess the article could be created from scratch. A 'what links here' could help find the various things published by it I suppose. Upon looking it up, it was a disambig for Gō Zappa who authored the Please Teacher/Twins series in addition to Chocotto Sister & Dengeki Bunko. This seems notable enough to create an article about the author, I just am generally apprehensive of starting new articles for fear of their deletion so start off with redirects to established articles about their products, this way people who want to delete something can attack a more established article instead of picking on the author of it. I start with deferring "perhaps this person is just notable for this work of fiction which was considered notable enough to get an article". Tyciol (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have unblocked you. I would recommend looking for possibly notable redlinks that could be worked into decent articles, or useful dab pages (like Koepcke). For pure redirects, please run them past me on my talkpage first. Black Kite 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I'll come back and a bit since I know it usually delays a bit before that working, I think I will start with trying to make a Zappa article, maybe Ryulong can help since he was adament about encouraging creating an article instead of redirecting to content. I do agree with him in the case where they have more than one notable work and I should search for that instead of assuming by default they only have one notable work as I have been in the past. I guess one gets lazy after having articles deleted, as far as I'm concerned if an author has multiple works notable enough to have surviving wikipedia articles about them then that's justification for the author to also have a page, is that wrong? Tyciol (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your unblock. Welcome back to editing. As with Black Kite, I recommend working on articles or identifying dabs. Creating redirects as the first step to articles isn't really the way to go I think. Feel free to run any suggestion past me - as you know, I'm horribly negative and will probably tell you not to do it, but I'm not always right, and discussion helps to clarify things on all sides. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

Koihime -> Koihime Muso = OK. Chocosis -> Chocotto Sister = OK. Don't create the "Chokosis" one though, that seems like a very unlikely search term. Black Kite 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unit Zappa is like Elton Hercules - it's too unlikely a search term (sorry, I was posting something else on BK's talk page and couldn't help noticing) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, agreed. Don't go anywhere near middle name + surname redirects unless there's a really good reason for it. Especially in this case - no-one's ever going to search for "Unit" without the "Moon" bit. Black Kite 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so set on making these weird redirects anyway? (not sure if you're watching my talk page) It's not a matter of changing the policy. It's a matter of plausibility - you may not create implausible redirects, and in the English Wikipedia, the implausibility for names is based on the way we use names. It's not written down anywhere because its based on social customs, I suppose. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee this is cool. I guess I should respond on BK's page, just to close the loop :). Anyway, the problem with creating a redirect Fate/ is that it's implausible again. In English, if you have that construction of name series/book, you wouldn't type the / in when searching for the name of the series. For instance, I wouldn't search for "Black Dagger Brotherhood/". It makes no sense, so there's no point in a redirect. An entry on a dab page perhaps. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please don't refactor comments as you did to me above. You'll do it to the wrong person and they'll get mad, and you'll find yourself blocked again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ermintrude

[edit]

Thanks for the clarification. Still, the only reason I questioned the speedy deletion was because the redirects weren't recently created. I have no doubt that they should be deleted as unlikely search terms. Yes, Saturday means "day of Saturn", but it's pretty far-fetched to think that readers are going to search for "day of Saturn" when they want to find information on Saturday. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Redirects

[edit]

I'll tell you why. Adrena is an uncommon first name, nobody is going to search for just that first name in order to find a list of minor characters in a television show. Higurei was one of many ridiculous neologism portmanteaus that you created that nobody in their right mind would ever search for. Now I'd appreciate it if you didn't critique every deletion, sorting through that list was one of the most boring things I've ever had to do here and would rather not have to keep explaining myself. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add though, pretty much all of the redirects I deleted were one of three things: A first name or last name going to an implausible article, a portmanteau that made no sense, or a perfectly valid redlink being redirected to an article that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Adrena" is a company which makes navigation software for yachts. It's also a rare first name for girls. Neither topic is intrinsically suitable for an article and should be left to Google. And the redirect you made went to a one-episode villain in a cartoon. Even if it went to a notable real person, it would not be okay unless the person were usually referred to by first name only. No more #Rs, no more dabs, no more refactoring and monkeying with talk-pages. How hard can this be? Xanthoxyl (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I do not want to read essays by you. If you want to talk to me on my talk page do so in four sentence blocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but I don't need the original content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost game over

[edit]

So I come back today, and you've created redirects without running them past me (Chokotto), added non-notable things to dab pages (Run-up) and pestered people to restore non-notable redirects. Let's me clear about this, if any of those things happen again, I'll restore the block, and there won't be another chance. Black Kite 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on proposed deletions

[edit]

Note I have responded. I find none of your arguments satisfactory - you still do not understand that a redlink is a valid thing, and your grasp of english at depth is not as good as your use of english in conversation, meaning that you are frequently not understanding that phrases have wider or older meanings. However, do continue the discussion if you wish. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I take quite a minimalist position. I don't like redirects except for common misspellings and keywording of synonmys - where an article title is not the only common synonym for the concept (eg travellator = moving walkway). Directing someone looking for The Acme Publishing Company to their most famous output The Sears Catalogue is anathama to me. So for example Celestial Order appears in talmudic teaching, Western mediaeval theology, Buddhist philosophy, the scriptures of more or less all polytheistic religions with scriptures (for example here is the Japanese version of the concept [7], Dante, Milton, the Theosophical society, the Celestial Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids] (part of my own order), a substantial online gaming community [8]....and so forth. Pointing the enquirer to a Marvel comic in this context is just plain ridiculous.

However, having said that, I do feel that your ideal of entering into discussion on the talk page of the redirects guideline is a sound one. I wouldn't try rewriting the guideline, but starting a discussion would certainly not be inappropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring talk pages

[edit]

I'm only gone to say this once. Do not refactor talk pages again as you did here.[9] There is absolutely not consensus that your refactoring is beneficial and you have been told repeatedly by several editors to knock it off. If you continue, I will bring it up with WP:ANI again. --—Farix (t | c) 21:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy on this exactly? It doesn't say there needs to be consensus (among whom?) that it is beneficial prior to every instance of simple refactoring. Isn't it more like a consensus that it is harmful? Like I'm just going based off of "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."
It was a small page and very friendly, no heated discussions I could see and it looked like good faith was extremely present on Talk:Yandere. I have not altered the original intent or meaning, so it's not anything extreme as editing (removal/alteration, though technically one does click the 'edit' button). Could it cause confusion? Have there been complaints from any of the participants whom I did those minor changes for? If I'm violating some policy then I want to stop, but while you are correct I've been asked to stop, requests like that should be accompanied with explanation. Some users have pointed out cases where refactoring too much could cause problems, I thought I was keeping those in mind by doing so more conservatively. Like, for example, I used to have a habit of lumping lines together into huge paragraphs which could cause problems with reading. But here I avoided doing that and they're separate. Which part of that struck you as most problematic? Refactoring isn't something that's not allowed so if I'm doing it wrong or too much then it's better to know which part was wrong. Was it adding the date, cleaning up space between equals signs, bringing a name to the right of text as is standard instead of unnecessarily leaving it on a new line? This increases legibility without confusing meaning. Tyciol (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When, you were originally told to not refactor pages, you were directed to WP:TALK, specifically the section about editing other editors comments, which only gives very limited cases where such edits are acceptable. You even brought the topic up there, but the condenses was that your refactoring was no helpful, was entirely inappropriate, and even disruptive. Yet, despite condenses against your refactoring, you continue to do it. It was this same problematic behavior, but regarding redirects, where you didn't listen to the consensus of other editors that got you blocked in the first place. Apparently, you haven't learned from your mistakes. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT IGNORE CONSENSUS. —Farix (t | c) 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source of confusion for me here is that RTP declares here that refactoring is not the same as editing: "Refactoring, unlike editing, saves the entire original intent and meaning" Rereading WP:TPO as you've suggested, it says there isn't a need to correct typos/grammar (as in, we shouldn't feel obligated) but 'no need' doesn't mean it's not allowed. It follows that we are forbid to strike out or delete comments without permission. I don't recall doing this (that would be 'editing', it goes beyond reformatting, which I'm led to believe is not considered to be included under the use of that word). It also forbids us to change the meaning, which I also did not do. "Minor refactoring edits are still appropriate." and these are collections of minor edits. The argument presented in the past is that it was 'major' because there was more than one or something. I did not ignore consensus: I read all the entries about the topic. Admittedly I haven't constantly monitored it, so I'll go check out the replies again and see if there's new stuff I haven't seen, but consensus does still need to obey the rules, you can't forbid someone to do something there aren't any rules against just because a lot of people happen to say so. To call my refactoring 'editing' contradicts the entry on RTP so people who think it should count should appeal to have the definitions changed right? Otherwise other people will probably also get confused. Tyciol (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We know you don't get it, so would you please consider just doing us a favor and stop editing talk pages. The many editors who have asked you to stop making these changes may all be wrong, but it would simply be polite to humor us. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tyciol, here are a few reasons to stop.
  1. You don't ask first, you just barge in, implying that you are superior to others
  2. Moving things around confuses people
  3. Fiddling with placement, white lines etc implies that you think other users are messy
  4. Correcting grammar and spelling implies that you think other users are stupid
  5. People use whitespace, indents etc on talkpages to signal something. By refactoring, you remove their ability to do this.
  6. You constantly risk making it appear someone said something that they didn't.

In short, STOP before you end up back at ANI. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be ANI, Black Kite will reblock or I will. The unblock was because Black Kite and I hoped he'd change his behavior. That doesn't seem to be happening. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example

[edit]

I redirected RunupRunUp to Run-up because it's a plausible typo - someone wanting the Run-up article might well leave the hyphen out - not because it was the name of the company. If the company isn't notable enough to have an article, it shouldn' be in the dab. Black Kite 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to remove all arguments, I have edited Tsunami to include a reference to run up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand BK's thinking, although I somewhat support your view that runup (tsunami) is a somewhat marginal inclusion. In terms of the company, since it is an entity, it should either have an article or be a redlink, and the entry in the dab page should not be piped.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make it very clear actually; the point is that if Runup is pointed towards Run-up - which it is - then RunUp needs to be as well, you can't have different capitalisations pointing to different places. Black Kite 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

[edit]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Crispin Glover

[edit]

Tyciol, you have just refactored Talk:Crispin Glover, including restoring a section from 2004 that had been deleted IN 2005, and quite gratuitously correcting some poor soul's punctuation to no valid end. What is your problem? What part of the word STOP are you failing to understand here? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyciol, that section was blanked in 2005. The IP address that you stuck a warning on is almost certainly not even in use by the same person. What is wrong with you? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Harris (disambiguation)

[edit]

As to Frank Harris, User:Boleyn2 was referring to WP:PIPING (some sections of MOS have a redirect on MOS but I don't think this one does, and I don't know why he used AB). As I note from the responses you have received on WT:WPDIS, I was correct and the entry was wrong. I have therefore reverted it again. Sorry --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way you have done it now is correct, so no more problems there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT refactor my comments (again)

[edit]

As I have said previously, if you alter someone's spelling, grammar or punctuation in a comment on a text page, all you do is piss them off - like you have pissed me off. Also, let me introduce you to the Rhetorical question. I don't expect answers to questions of the "why do you keep doing this" type, therefore they do not require a question mark. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I understand about the English thing - but it is all the more reason not to correct someone else's posts. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a job for you..

[edit]

..if you're interested. I nominated Day of Saturn at RfD[10], and a couple of astrologers have pointed out that it should redirect to Planetary hours. And moreover, there are a whole set of Day of Planet X and Hour of Planet X redirects that should point there as well. What do you say? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


October 2009

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

[edit]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planets and free Radicals

[edit]

If you read Planetary hours you can see quite clearly where all the Day of Planet X and Hour of Planet X redirects come in. "Monday is always the Day of the Moon. Tuesday is the day of Mars, Wednesday is ruled by (the day of )Mercury, Thursday is Jupiter's day, Friday is the day of Venus, Saturday is the day of Saturn, and Sunday is the day of the Sun." "The first planetary hour of the day is always the same as the planetary day; so sunrise on Monday is the beginning of both the day of the Moon and the hour of the Moon...the second planetary hour of the day of the Moon is the hour of Saturn, the third would be the hour of Jupiter, and so on."

With the days of the week, I think the link is less good, as they are named after a mixture of deities and planets Mona(moon)'s day; Tiw's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, Freya's day, Saturn's day, Sunne's day, and not the "Day of" structure, but specifically the anglo saxon form.

As for radicals and free radicals, (sorry, Black Kite's talkpage seems to be on my watchlist), it may help to know that a 'free-radical' is a thing (what thing I'm not exactly sure, but it's some sort of chemical particle like a molecule or something), whereas in all the other uses 'radical' is an adjective qualifying 'theory', and meaning 'diverged from the accepted version'.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, I might have read about stuff like that in the past but I guess I forgot. That's pretty cool, since I do like some Norse mythology (even if it's somewhat Marvel/Palladium focused rather than reading straight from the source). I'm not too familiar with Tiw (not the same as Tyr possibly?) but I wonder if he's like Ares? Hermes doesn't seem like a match for Odin although I can definitely see how Freya would be linked with Aphrodite. Still not totally sure where Planet X fits in, except for the hours of the day since you'd need 24 as opposed to 7 I guess. I think free-radical should redirect to the use in chemistry (and +theory, to that regarding aging) but without the dash (free radical/Radical) is where I am apprehensive since it could refer to those divergent works, because I don't want to inject my preference for chemistry into redirecting. Tyciol (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiw is the saxon equivalent of Tyr, but their mythologies are somewhat different. The planetary hours recycle - please read the first few paragraphs of the article and you'll see how it works.

Free radical (capitals as you please) should only redirect to the chemistry use, as none of the other uses of Radical also involve Free, so someone entering free radical with miscapitialisation is certainly looking for the chemistry usage. Radical theory should not be the subject of a dab because the phrase "Radical theory" may in other places be 'a new theory of....' or 'a revolutionary theory of....'. Except for the theory about chemical radicals where it is acually the name of the thing, it is unlikely that a searcher would put in 'radical theory' rather than "Veblen" or "Social Evolution" or "Journal of Radical Theory" (which should certainly exist as a redirect to the longer name) , or Thought Dreams or whatever.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Elen has mentioned the FRTA links on my talkpage. I think the Chacha redirect is also a good one (plenty of Google hits). But please do not start on the middle name redirects again. Just - no. Black Kite 22:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re above ^^. That was a "see also", placed at the top of the article rather than the bottom. It wasn't a disambiguation hatnote. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could list the other chemical FRT on the FRTA dab - I don't think that would be wrong. And disambiguate Free Radical Theory and Flippase thingybob (can you tell I failed Chemistry at school) if you so wish. But I wouldn't create an FRT dab that pointed to the other meanings of FRTA, as the contractions you have proposed are difficult (Fox River Trolley makes no sense, Franklin regional transit is bad english, and Federal reserve transparency is an existing financial concept, so you would have to show that the acronym FRT did not apply to it.) Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard of flippase until now either :) Anyway I purposefully didn't mention Fox River Trolley (I did not consider it an acronym). I am not sure if transit is bad english though, I've heard phrases that end in transit, such as York Region Transit. Presumably the 'authority' is whoever controls such transit agencies. I am kind of confused by this statement about federal reserve, why would I need to show that an acronym does not apply to it to be able to use it? Do you mean to demonstrate that it is abbreviated or something? Tyciol (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That last one is a typo - I meant to say did apply to it. I guess the transit thing must be North American english. Either way it's confusing. I wonder if one solution is to make one dab page and redirect both FRT and FRTA to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)

[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 5 — 3rd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2009, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Middle-earth character infoboxes

[edit]

Hi there. You're signed up as a member of Wikiproject Middle-earth. There's a discussion on character infoboxes going on here. It's heading towards a fairly inconclusive 'no change' at present. If you're interested please express your views (for or against the proposal, or an alternative) at the WP:M-E talkpage. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for the typeface collaboration

[edit]
Requesting editors' help

There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire redirects

[edit]

Tyciol, if there are no entries for these obscure characters in this obscure episode of this obscure tv series, then don't bother making redirects. We don't need them People can search on the series title or the episode title - and if the name appears anywhere in the one article that does exist, they can even search for the name. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Edit Day

[edit]
HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE

Wishing Tyciol/2009 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Vatsan34 (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

I've blocked your account for pro-pedophile activism. I will email you the full rationale shortly because the information I have isn't suitable for a public forum. If you wish to contest this block, please contact the arbitration committee directly (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude, but Ive had Tyciol's talkpage on my watchlist ever since an unrelated incident in August ... but did you mean to type arbcom-l ? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies - yeah I meant arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org - I've changed it above as well. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

[edit]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

[edit]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

[edit]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

[edit]

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

[edit]

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Hidefumi Kimura

[edit]

I have nominated Hidefumi Kimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. allen四names 03:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Silent Three

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Silent Three. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Three. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyciol/2009&oldid=1213603078"