User talk:Shii/History4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Numeral systems template
Hey Ashibaka. Refering to your using "Hindu-Arabic family" on the numeral systems template, you might like to look at an extensive discussion somewhere on the archives of the Hindu-Arabic numerals talk page about the distinction between a numeral system and numerals. A numeral system is not the symbols used to express it. Since normally there is a unique set of symbols associated with a numeral system (e.g. Roman numerals with Roman numeral system), the template uses just "Roman" and the article describes both the numerals (i.e., the symbols I, V ,M C ,etc) as well as the system (i.e., how to decode something like MCXVII.) This becomes a bit tricky with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system since its widespread use has given rise to many symbol sets in different parts of the world. You can call these symbol sets as belonging to the "Hindu-Arabic family" if you want. Since this template is about "numeral systems" not "numeral symbol sets", I would preferably stick with just "Hindu-Arabic." Regards. deeptrivia (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just saying "Hindu-Arabic" in that template is a little confusing, because it refers to the system as opposed to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" (the current subtitle of Arabic numerals). I just gave it a qualifier off the top of my head in order to disambiguate the word-- thanks for clearing me up. Ashibaka tock 03:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, Ashibaka! Great work!! deeptrivia (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] thanks
Thanks for the welcome!Poiuyt098@hotmail.com 05:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ducks on the pond
Heh. Happy ducks in a pram day to you, too! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Persondata
I was not able to reproduce the problem you had with the persondata template and the cologne blue skin. If you could provide me with a bit more information perhaps I can get to the bottom of it. Are you still seeing the template (I reverted the template back for testing purposes)? What browser and version are you using? Do you know of anything in your user stylesheet that might be causing a conflict with the metadata css? Kaldari 20:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I got this error with Firefox 1.0. However, it seems to have fixed itself now-- maybe it was a caching bug. Ashibaka tock 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner
[edit] AfD
It wasn't orphaned? Can you tell me what was wrong with it? I couldn't find it anywhere, and it looked like the nominator had filled out subst:afd but not subst:afd2 or subst:afd3, and it took me a few minutes to figure out and fix. bikeable (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think your cache was old. It is listed twice on today's AfD page when I last checked :) Ashibaka tock 04:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: WP:NOT
I just reverted the edit you made to WP:NOT where you removed the "weird template". I have my own reservations about the whole "policy in a nutshell" idea and have argued against it on the template's Talk page. I believe that the first paragraph ought to be the synopsis of the entire policy page. (Actually, I think it might have been one of the predecessor versions, but that's not really important.) Several people disagree and are experimenting with this format where they attempt to summarize the entire policy in a single phrase or sentence.
Anyway, I reverted your edit because I think that if the template should go, the "one-liner" should go too. If the one-liner stays, the template wrapper should also stay. I wouldn't disagree if you took out the whole thing but orphaning the one-liner without that template wrapper seemed more confusing than helpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies. You are correct that the one-liner has existed for a longer time on this page than this experiment with the "policy in a nutshell". I lost track of the edit history somehow. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sorry
hey, sorry for messing up your post over @ talk:lolicon when I archived... Don't know what you intended so I'll leave to field to you to fix etc. :) Mikkerpikker 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Edit conflicts don't usually bugger up the thing that's already been added, it's your post that you'll need to add back in from the box on the bottom. When using talk pages, adding section headers usually clears these conflicts up. Ashibaka tock 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the US Legal status of Lolicon
While I still contend that a clear warning must be placed, I will submit to your judgment. At least, please, discuss this with someone else. Deleteme 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure anyone else who looks at the Talk page and has a different opinion will want to bring it up. Ashibaka tock 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed policy in a nutshell template from Wikipedia:Banning policy
I was just wondering if you had a specific reason for removing the template and replacing it with text. You didn't leave an edit summary. Stevage 18:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I felt that a "policy in a nutshell" was not a good idea for the Banning Policy article, just like it isn't a good idea at WP:NOT. Ashibaka tock 19:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hikikomori
Hi. I agree, i only added it because one user was using ONLY this spelling. I actually prefer your version.I woudl keep Hikokimori as a redirect though. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Trollish Rubbish"
It was neither trollish nor rubbish, it was a point of fact. WP:AGF. Do not add flames to my talk page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.161.140 (talk • contribs)
- Uh, adding "Wikipedia sucks" to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day is trolling. Ashibaka tock 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.161.140 (talk • contribs)
Template:Linkimage Here is a barnstar in recognition for your work in making Wikipedia into Dickipedia. Lets here it for your long hard work at trolling and being a dick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeJoeBeans (talk • contribs)
[edit] translation request
did some work on your request of "卵かけご飯” from japanese: tamago kake gohan. just letting you know. Tmkain 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Read this before deleting
Notice my pov notice was left that is a high traffic page as well, your the only one who dosent agree there is clear bias against it all the wikipedia fanboys and girls have been adding to it. Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial Mike 10:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- And you're the only one who agrees to that, as far as I can tell. Ashibaka tock 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Apparenty not seeing as your the only one who even thought about deleting it. Mike 02:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Politics and the English Language
I bumped across your edit here, which I thought suitably addressed the irony in a hilarious way [1], so I've decided to give you a barnstar. A bit late, but still!
Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, it's a real Barnstar! Thanks, mate, I really appreciate it. Ashibaka tock 03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:2ch-aa.png
I see that you've tagged image:2ch-aa.png with Template:PD-ineligible (uncopyrightable because "it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship"). I assume this refers to the fact that it is made up of Shift-JIS characters that are in themselves common property? If so, I don't think this alone is enough to assume it's public domain. It's comparable to the idea that all printed music would be public domain since individual notes cannot be copyrighted, or that all digital images would be public domain since individual coloured pixels cannot be copyrighted. Are there other reasons to believe that this image is free of copyright? EldKatt (Talk) 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The same applies to image:2ch_Shift_JIS_art.png. EldKatt (Talk) 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have no strict evidence. The first image is a common SJIS image macro, which uses common SJIS characters Monar and Onigiri, so I simply decided that it contains no copyrightable content. The original creator obviously made it for widespread use-- 2channel's SJIS art is frequently used on billboards, anime, variety shows, etc. in Japan without attribution. I know this is rather unorthodox reasoning but marking it as fair use is even sillier, IMHO.
- The second is an SJIS rendering of someone else's photo, and I suppose it should be web-screenshot rather than PD. I'll find one to replace it. Ashibaka tock 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:main talk page
I think I'd rather bring this here than continue it there, I talked to nohat about the image and he's probably aware of his mistake (jawiki brought it to his attention a little while ago) but he doesn't really need to admit it in his position; it would simply be too big a task to fix it and so nobody is going to bother at least until the logo changes again.
That being said, I don't like to lose an argument (sorry) and I still think I'm right, so I stand by my first statement that it's a mistaken entry using the characters ク and ィ. I'm not sure what your Japanese level is (you seem to have some role in translation, though I'm not sure about that). Originally the nohat version of the logo used the character ヰ, which is kind of funny, I thought, but almost as wrong as クィ. At the time when the logo was created, the Japanese wiki was still quite small and the vote wasn't properly attended so it kind of slipped through for a few months. I don't want to generalize but I'd say it's a little bit of a Japanese characteristic not to worry too much about 'foreigner' mistakes like this. freshgavin TALK 12:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- We should have used ヰ in the romanization, that would have fun :) But it does look like he made up his own ligature by writing wa+i, and then stretched it out vertically. Maybe you're right; it's wrong either way. Ashibaka tock 16:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly said, ヰ would have made more sense, going along with nohats claim that they are a collection of random international characters. You'd be much more likely to get ヰ randomly than クィ! Anyways, I would like to create a proposal to create a new logo in general (now that the logo is getting official attention from the likes of the New York Times) just so that the framework is up, and I know there's a lot of people there who want it changed; it's way overdue now. There's no reason to make a new image for each language either, the text doesn't even overlap the image! I'm not sure what the guys upstairs would think about that though ... freshgavin TALK 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It is recognizable, and rather professional, but it's the flaws that bug me. The white line surrounding the sphere due to anti-aliasing; the odd random choice of 'international' characters, though the English W is clearly meant to represent the word Wikipedia. The huge effort it takes to translate the logo into every language (it's only going to get worse if it continues like this). I think professionality of a logo means that there is no room for criticism. Take the google logo. People can say they like it or don't like it, but there's are very few technical details that you can pick up on, because it's so simple. I guess you could argue about color, but that's more aesthetic than technical.
I'm a big fan of the CPL logo, which is clean and simple, and also scalable and can be implemented into any kind of design, from 2 meter long posters even to a simple ASCII style character. I think with wikipedia getting as big as it is, serious thought has to be put into the publicity aspect of the wiki logo. Anyways, yeah I'll eventually take it up somewhere else. freshgavin TALK 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NoSeptember's RfA
Thank you, Ashibaka, for your support in my RfA. If you ever need for anything, please contact me. I am pleased that you found my answers encouraging. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember talk 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jimbo
Yes, Jimbo's opinion is very interesting, as interesting as any other wikipedians opinion. And since I think WPs official policies are important the picture should be showed (or replaced with a picture that is more accepted by the average american puritanist wikipedian). The picture is not illegal. 81.216.236.207 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Who says Jimbo's opinions overrule official policies? Even if that is what Jimbo himself thinks, I am not going to accept that one man is going to impose his moralist, non-NPOV views on WP. And NPOV is in fact non-negociable. If Jimbo don't like it, then I suggest that he shut down WP (which he of course won't do).
[edit] R4000
thx for the help man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4000 (talk • contribs)
[edit] VeryVerily
Thank you. VeryVerily 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD Thanks
AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[edit] AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD
- LOVE IT!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattersonc (talk • contribs)
[edit] Election talks
A discussion has begun on how to handle the official election for replacing the Main Page. To make sure it is set up sensibly, and according to participants' consensus, your input is needed. --Go for it! 09:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bring your boots
Uncle Jimbo wants YOU. Join WP:BC CQ 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, mate, I don't actually use IRC. I hung out in #wikipedia to see the fuss, but generally I avoid it and I would have to use two different nicks at once on Freenode anyway. Ashibaka tock 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Esperanzial note
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.
[edit] Darn!
I was just closing that Texas town one, the first AfD debate I ever would have closed (I'm not an admin and was following WP:IAR), and when I hit the save button it's an edit conflict because you beat me to it! CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 22:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I was just checking my Contributions list... sorry, I'll let you close your own speedy-keep AfDs next time. ;) Ashibaka tock 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations Ashibaka! --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats. And regarding the length of my support, I have to admit that almost two lines of it was "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist". --Deathphoenix 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- congrats from me, too. Have fun with your administrator's superpowers! Grutness...wha? 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Note to everyone: If I didn't leave you a personal note, it's because I couldn't think of anything personal to say and I don't like spamming people who have just been nice to me. It's a conundrum! If you are feeling down and left out I will draw you a picture. Ashibaka tock 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Congrats, may you be a great mover and shaker (latter part is optional!). --Gurubrahma 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move notice at Talk:Lost
Hey, Ashibaka. (Would that be a relative of Ashitaka from Princess Mononoke?)
I noticed that you removed the move notice from Talk:Lost. Did you do that thinking it was left over from the previous move request back in September? Because there's a new move request up at WP:RM, and I think that the notice is supposed to be up while the request is active. I hope I haven't got the wrong end of the stick, but I think I'm going to put it back. But I wanted to let you know that I wasn't edit warring with you, and if there's some reason the template shouldn't be there please let me know. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a misspelling of Ashitaka because Yahoo sees a bad word in there. Sorry about that, I was going through a bunch of old requested moves and I didn't notice that one was actually going for a second time. I'll check in the future. :) Ashibaka tock 02:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dante26
Hey Ashibaka. I noticed a few days ago you did some cleaning up after Dante26, believing that a lot of his edits of Italianised names and articles were hoaxes. Well, it seems that the ones that arent hoaxes are copyvios. I've warned him about 6 articles, 3 were speedied, the rest are in the backlog. Anyway, three days after I told him they were copyvios, he went back to Joe Spinell and added back in the exact same copyvio text that he has obviously copy and pasted from IMDb. He so obviously lifts text from IMDb that he doesn't even bother removing IMDb's elipses from the filmographys. There's also an article I nominated for db-bio because, if you believe the article, there is no assertion of notability (he claims the actor only had two film credits and the rest belong to another actor of the same name. I googled for any references that supported this, and the claim that the actor had died 20 years ago, but could find absolutely nothing). As far as I can tell, not one shred of it was verifiable. But Tim Pope felt the article had some merit and moved it to AFD. Personally, I believe it is either a bio which makes no asserion of notability, a hoax or totally unverifiable. So I was wondering if you could please take a look at what is going on with him, it is starting to get really tedious cleaning up his copyvios and insertions of unverifiable and unsourced Italianised names and information. He also appears to be doing this as AOL anons (User: 64.12.116.7, User:64.12.116.198 for instance) as there are [2] [3] anons inserting the same type of edits and one has even advised others to copy and paste bios from IMDb [4]. There's also the issue of Italianised names, he inserted into Michael P. Moran the assertion that his real name is "Moranco". I removed it and rewrote the entire article. I googled for all versions of the name Michael Peter Moranco and got zero hits. An anon then came along and added back in the "Moranco," which I removed, asking for sources to be cited, then today another anon has resinserted the name change. Sorry, to bring this to you, but I figured you were the best person since you are already aware of him. Thanks. :) Sarah Ewart 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for sorting that out. And the archive links are broken because I changed my username and haven't moved the pages over yet. Thanks, though. :) Sarah Ewart 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Our friend is back as User:Opy67, posting copyvios and has restarted the Fulco Scorvella hoax you nominated for deletion. *sigh* Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks and sorry you've been getting complaints. I noticed the other day he was AOL, or at least the anon IPs I thought were him were on AOL. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit Question on Azumanga Daioh
One of the problems with the editing process is that it's nearly impossible to cite sepcifically what you deleted without compounding the problem. I noticed this on your edit of the Azumanga Daioh article -- it took me a while to figure out which reference you cut. For the record, the "Mi" conversation is there, in the scene in which Tomo and Osaka are trying to figure out which year of the Chinese Zodiac it is. Whether it's a Chobits reference is questionable, but it is there. So it's not a problem with the edit -- just that it took a while for me to figure out what it was.Michael Hopcroft 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- By clicking the "diff" link you can see exactly what I took out at the top.
- I wrote "patently false" because the Chinese Zodiac skit is about the Chinese zodiac and any comparisons to Chobits originate in the heads of American viewers. Basically it's original research. Ashibaka tock 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipe-tan
Wikipe-tan fills my heart with Moé~ Thatdog 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lolicon protection
Well, no - that's not really what I meant. It's not that I object lolicon being "frozen" at "The Wrong Version" it is that I didn't think protection was really that necessary. Given that everyone else seems to think it is I'm prob wrong about that, so I don't mind it being protected for now. (not sure we're EVER going to resolve this... in fact, I've promised myself not the visit the lolicon or talk:lolicon pages for a couple of weeks. Let's see whether that lasts!!!) Mikkerpikker ... 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Macedonia
Naming conflict policy clearly states that "If the term "Cabindan" (i.e. RoM) is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised". The deleted footnotes brought this article to compliance with the policy. Please explain why meeting the requirements of the Naming Conflict Policy is grounds for locking the page. Regards, Sysin 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I locked it because of an edit war, not because of non-compliance with any policy. Ashibaka tock 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, now it is locked in a state of non-compliance. Sysin 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- m:The Wrong Version Ashibaka tock 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, now it is locked in a state of non-compliance. Sysin 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My RFA
Hi Shii/History4, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position from neutral. All the best, Proto t c 10:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA Thanks!
[edit] Please
Remember to add pages you protect to the protected pages list. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ::Puke::
[edit] AOL and dante
User_talk:Dante26#Blocked--205.188.116.197 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dante26
My name is Dante26
you have blocked me for "vandalism".
Every article I have put on your website is 100% true.
- Some of it is copyright violations and some of it is a hoax. You never cited sources for your "Newt Pips" article and it is patently ridiculous. Ashibaka tock 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
i did not know that giving a person's birth name, (Joe Spinell=Joseph J. Spagnuolo) was a copyright violation. It is simply reporting facts. the newt pips article is 100 percent true. It is veraviable if you search for newt pips in realtion to the hardy boys books.
You also told me that you would look at the fighting the mafia book at your local library to read about fulco scorvella. what happened to that??
--Dante26 February 6, 2006
[edit] Buondelmonte
My good friend Buondelmonte (a distinguished opera scholar who is new to Wikipedia) has apparently been blocked by you from writing to Giulia Grisi. It seems that this is because of some problem connected to Dante26.
Can you let us know what is happening and if possible reverse the action?
Buondelmonte is a bona fide member of the Opera Project see Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera.
Kleinzach 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Process is not as important as complete idiocy
The template has been deleted by Jimbo as utterly unacceptable (as I would have thought was obvious). Please do not recreate it again, using whatever excuse to do so. Putting a template on TFD does not mean we are obligated to keep it a week - David Gerard 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your addition to Mohammad cartoon controversy
Hi. The headline you posted under was intentionally left blank. Everything you wrote has been dealt with in length in the aricle that is referenced fron the link. The article has been split last friday to shorten it and make editing easier. It will probably be merged back at some point. Please reconsider your addition. Azate 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Userbox
Given your viewpoint expressed on WP:TFD, I thought you might like the userbox I just created, Template:User process. Just a heads-up. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. I don't have userboxes anymore because of the drama, but if I did I would put that at User:Ashibaka/Userpage Kudzu posthaste. Ashibaka tock 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thank you very much Ashibaka. You are also doing great work for the wikipedia. I've been following the userbox problem a little but don't get discouraged if things don't work out there. :) Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Desysopping
Jimbo Wales has temporarily desysopped several administrators involved in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, yourself included, until such time as the Arbitration Committee can sort the matter out. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Desysoppings Raul654 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Don't wheel war"
I find it ironic that you used this as an edit summary edit summary after undoing the actions of two different administrators—to me, that certainly looks like you were the instigator of the wheel war. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be linking to a rather random diff link. I did get involved in some wheel wars yesterday because admins were nastily trying to prevent people from seeing what they were voting on in TfD discussions. Ashibaka tock 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct—my apologies; I included an incorrect link. To be more detailed, I was referring to your actions on Template:User paedophile. After the template was created, it was deleted; you undeleted it and a different user deleted it; you then undeleted it again. You left a message on the talk page ([5], the diff following yours since yours was the first edit) with the edit summary "don't wheel war". I find that ironic; however, I also consider the matter resolved. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration
A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've read your statement relating to this arbitration, and while I understand the first part the second part makes no sense whatsoever. I understand it relates to Fresh Prince of Bel Air but having never seen it, I am unable to work out if your words mean smoething relating to the case or are just complete gibberish. I'm not an arbitrator, so it doesn't matter that much that I don't understand it. However you might want to consider adding an explanation so any arbitrators who are as clueless as me regarding American television can understand what you are trying to say. Thryduulf 14:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll let Ashibaka explain, but all I'll say is that it was hilarious. =) Easily the best arbitration statement ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I stand by every word of my statement. Ashibaka tock 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, let's not be too obtuse. I ended my statement with nonsense because (1) I felt everyone needed a reminder that ArbCom is not a moot court (especially on a topic so irrelevant to the encyclopedia), and (2) I didn't have an insightful conclusion or anything to say after that. Later I added an addendum in case it was unclear to anyone. Ashibaka tock 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Dante26
I've indef. blocked him for recreating the hoaxes. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedophilia
You are entirely correct that one cannot "engage in pedophilia". Inasmuch as the term has been blanketly—and incorrectly—applied across several discussions in view of the Carnildo blocks, I used the term in both the proper and improper senses, viz., as applying to "the love of children" (see, e.g., my "states of being" reference to Robinson v. California) and as applying to the performance of sex acts with a child (which our wiktionary terms, inter al., "child molestation", with which term I might quibble, if not legally then surely descriptively, at least as applied to situations in which de jure consent is given). While certainly I recognized the distinction, I suppose I chose to overlook it in the interest of best following the previous discussions; surely when bans were issued for one's having defined himself as a "pedophile", the term was understood to reference actions rather than thoughts or feelings; thus even as Carnildo explained he thought blocking self-described "pedophiles" to be improper, in view of their not having acted untowardly, he was (at least as far as I can gather) referencing their not having acted poorly on Wikipedia but not their not having acted criminally externally (even had they acted criminally off Wikipedia, absent conduct on which others would look down, they would nevertheless, were they banned, have been persecuted simply for their respective states of being, in this case convicted criminals [even as I surely find many of the laws of the violation of which they would have been convicted and under which they would have been punished to be wholly draconian]). Even as I think the blocks and bans issued by those whom Carnildo then blocked and banned to have been altogether inappropriate, I don't think they would have been issued had those issuing them apprehended in one's describing him/herself as a pedophile simply that he/she wished to communicate his/her love for a child. Even as society-and, I suppose, Wikipedians writ large-seems to frown on adult-minor sexual contact, surely there is considerably less stigma attached to one's thinking of engaging in such conduct, and, even, I suppose, of one's expressing a desire so to engage. All of which, I guess, is to say that you are correct to criticize my less-than-accurate word choice, but to say that whilst I recognize the dichotomy of which you wrote and whilst perhaps I ought to have noted such understanding in my other posts, I chose the term I thought best fit the discussion; surely that does not diminish, though, the accuracy of your comment, and, indeed, its relevance, as perhaps it will cause those admins with whom Carnildo has properly taken issue to rethink their views apropos of pedophilia, at least as defined in the dictionary. Then again, as a userbox on my page says, I'm a descriptivist, so, what do I know? Cordially, Joe 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just kidding. I see your point, and I thought you were merely making a common usage error. Ashibaka tock 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On Wikibreak
Back in two weeks or whatever. No hard feelings. Ashibaka tock 12:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- No hard feelings from this side either. Holding WikiGrudges is a Bad Idea, and I don't intend to start now! Nobody's perfect, especially not in the sort of stressful situation we had on Sunday. I look forward to seeing you editing and adminning again when you're back from your break. Physchim62 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lin Kuei
Hi there. You say this is a paraphrase from GURPS. Where? --Perfecto 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image licensing
Hi Ashibaka, I changed the license tags on Image:2ch Shift JIS art.png and Image:2ch-aa.png from PD to no-license and no-source. Your initial license of PD was questionable but the license of PD-ineligible that someone changed them to was outrageous. As far as I can tell there is no reason to believe that these images are in the public domain. silsor 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
it is not double standard. Denmark is a Christian country. Grow up.
06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61
[edit] Congrats
I just found out you'd been promoted, and then demoted. I hadn't seen your nomination, but I'd have voted for you if I had. Don't worry about this little blip. Looking forward to your return. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] so i herd u like barnstars
[edit] Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
 |
Thank you Hello Ashibaka, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. Incidentally, I regret your Wikistress and firmly believe you were acting in good faith. I agree with others that you should be resysopped. Peace, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)
[edit] Welcome back, Kotter
Nice to see you're not on wikibreak anymore. Keep up the good work, sir. --Sporkot 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The bureaucrats may not realize that your time is up. BorgHunter left this note when his time was up. Welcome back. NoSeptember talk 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, welcome back! Physchim62 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Hello, Ashibaka - Thank you for the note. Actually as soon as I hit "save page," I realized that it was on the main page and not on the talk page. I had already fixed it when I got your note. Chronicler3 22:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oops! That's what I get for patrolling RC without giving ample time for people to correc their own mistakes. Ashibaka tock 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- - No problem. Chronicler3 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No need to shout
Hey, no need to yell. There are already far too many people round here taking things a bit too seriously and doing a lot of yelling. I think that a nice cup of tea would do a lot of good! Grace Note 04:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Danko Georgiev
Dear Ashibaka, I wish to ban Danko Georgiev from Wikipedia for his repeated accusations of Fraud to me regarding my experiment [6] on the talk pages. My experimental results were verified by faculty from Harvard and other schools. I will not allow this idiot to ruin my reputation. He must be repudiated by the Wikipedia community. Any help you can offer in this regard would be appreciated.-- Afshar 06:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- First off, calm down, your reputation is not being threatened over this article. Bans are meant to stop future problems, not punish people for current disputes. Also, you are making legal threats on that page, which is not just rude but dangerous. I'll ask the other admins for an opinion on this. Ashibaka tock 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roma people won!
[edit] RfA/Christopherlin
Thanks for taking the time to vote and comment on my recent RfA. It closed (22/11/8). Thanks also for pointing out your concerns on the "stressful situation" question. I had meant that I generally don't get stressed, but I try to keep civil and cool. I'll be back again after I get some more experience outside of the main namespace, and hope to have your support then. --Christopherlin 17:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Avoid conditional templates
You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates, but you may not be aware of the clarifications from the Arbitrators related to my case. In short, they've asked that the specific, literal, interpretation of my restrictions shouldn't be followed unless I'm intentionally disruptive. In fact, Sam Korn, one of the Arbitrators, has voted on the MFD page, so he didn't see a problem. Please undelete and let the vote conclude naturally. -- Netoholic @ 00:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Almost forgot... another Arbitrator (James_F) was also well aware I created it (he protected it from moves). Since two Arbitrators are aware, I think that shows tacit approval of my right to create the page in the Wikipedia namespace. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Forking a failed proposal as a means of circumventing consensus is quite disruptive. —David Levy 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- So is stalking. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- As I noted once before, the link is labeled "User contributions," not "Stalk Netoholic." In this instance, however, I came to this talk page when I saw that Ashibaka had closed the debate (to check for comments from you or other parties). —David Levy 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- So is stalking. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw the clarification, so I didn't block you. But it was an unwanted fork as everyone else in the MfD debate attested to. Ashibaka tock 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- If that is the case, it does not make it a speedy deletion candidate, and indeed one Arbitrator voted Keep. Just undelete the page and let the discussion run its course. Even if it were to be deleted, I'd want it in my user space to preserve the edit history and content. -- Netoholic @ 00:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
As a side note, please also watch what you type in log summaries... those are permanent and cannot be changed. Sticking to dry comments may be better. kthx -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It probably is better to allow the debate to run its course; the page's deletion should be based upon the merits of the nomination, not a technicality. —David Levy 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to co-opt the process, I just noted that Netoholic was still somewhat banned from the Wikipedia namespace for being disruptive, and he had created a proposal which absolutely nobody wanted, so I figured the ban might apply. But since he protested the deletion it's really not a big deal. Ashibaka tock 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I personally believe that the speedy deletion was entirely warranted, but I suspect that Netoholic would have found some way to use it to his advantage. ("The debate was cut short, so there's no way to know whether the community supports my proposal. Let's drag this out some more!") —David Levy 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please also undelete Wikipedia talk:Avoid conditional templates and WP:ACT (shortcut). -- Netoholic @ 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Border on ship info box
If you don't like the border on the ship info box, as on USS Bogue (CVE-9), recommend that you bring it up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships talk page. Otherwise, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. Jinian 10:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- That wasn't WP:POINT, I was trying to make it look nicer. Also, that's a WikiProject, so as it says the infobox is "only a suggestion". Ashibaka tock 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoax
One more to add: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dante Evil. Renata 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! It only lasted a few days, though-- there are probably hundreds of little mini-hoaxes like that. Ashibaka tock 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Gone to Italy - leave messages below, I will read them when I get back! Ashibaka tock 00:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
 |
This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox. |
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the participatory economics page and look at the talk and history to see what was up. This is not a legitmate reason for a one year block. Crap like this also makes up the majority of my block history (while other editors get away with gross violations themselves) Its stuff like this that makes good editors hostile.(Gibby 16:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
[edit] RE: WikiProject Anime and manga participantion
You are listed at a participant of WikiProject Anime and manga. A recent change in how participants are listed — using a category — will result in your inadvertent removal from the project. If you wish to continue your participantion, please check the the project page for details on how to add yourself back to the project. --TheFarix 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neta up on Afd
I know you are away and probably will not be back in time, but there is always a chance you will check right? I think the discussion could use your input. kotepho 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have long had qualms about this particular article of mine. It's real information that can't be found anywhere else easily, but it's also not encyclopedic. Maybe I should "transwiki" it to my personal website. Ashibaka tock 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- You do need to know what to look for to find it; however, one isn't likely to run into it without knowing where to look. Might as well put it back in the 2channel list, but I'm not sure it fits in with List of internet slang. kotepho 18:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You for unblanking my user talk page
Sincerely,
[edit] WikiProject Japan templates
Please do not change things like you did without discussing the changes first. It took me about 30 minutes to unravel the mess that was made. We appreciate help with the project, but please be more cautious in the future as changing those templates affects hundreds of pages. Thanks! (^_^) --日本穣 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Game!
Thank you so much for deleting it! Adycarter 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how I can see the old Game articles prior to their deletion? Thanks. Kernow
[edit] I appreciate your attempt to help
... but sorry, I don't think it is appropriate to show Israel's map with no caption: it is unclear why is it there. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not the same as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor this is internal Israel's matter. FYI, until the dispute is resolved in Talk, I've commented it out. Arigato! ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit protected
Thanks for putting that tag up. Much appreciated. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Instantnood
I noticed you blocked Instantnood, but didn't page ban him from the articles he was revert warring on. Most of the back and forth reverting on those articles goes back several weeks or months in time, so it's best to use the page ban method. From his recent reverts, here are ones that are most egregious from just the last few days that probably deserve more than just a short time block:
- Mainland China 4 reverts, he's adding a template for discussion or fact check, but not starting the discussion on the talk page.
- Template:HK Template:Hong Kong three page moves, at some point an admin stepped in and he kept at it.
- Template:Hong Kong infobox 2 reverts, reverting an admin who has explained himself
- Transportation in Beijing 2 reverts, ridiculous edit summaries, this edit war goes back months.
- List of football stadiums by capacity 2 reverts
- List of indoor arenas 2 reverts
-
- Those last two were also the ones done after I begged him to please stop on his talk page. I don't want to appear too eager to get him banned and blocked, but at least it makes him go to the talk pages of those articles to state a case. SchmuckyTheCat 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- As soon as he returned, he reverted the template above and some other article again. I always hope that the time base blocks from the entire project would get him to quit reverting on his return, but they never do - he always does. At least the page bans prescribed by Arbcom have the benefit that he stops the reverting on those pages. I'm sure throughout today we'll see another dozen reverts if he makes anymore edits today. SchmuckyTheCat 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Encyclopaedia Dramatica
My opinion of this article keeps swaying from one side to the other. If wikipedia wants to be a encyclopedia (i.e. a reliable source of information accessible to those w/o knowledge of the field), which I don't think it really is but that doesn't mean it isn't trying, it should be deleted. If wikipedia wants to be a repository of all human knowledge it should stay. I guess a point in the middle would be describing what it is but avoiding qualifiying or categorizing the content (which even if it is patently obvious we cannot find a secondary source that says it). In the end my conflict isn't really over the article, which I don't give a damn about, but over what wikipedia is/is trying to/should be. After seeing The Game's debate it seems that wikipedia only requires sources for things it does not believe. Even some articles that are as easy to source as science and math articles seem to exist without sources for the majority of the content. No one would dare to AFD them though as sources could be found which is not the case for ED. kotepho 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking about the same subject a few months ago. Ashibaka tock 16:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is an interesting essay and I mostly agree with it along with AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's stance. The value of wikipedia is not reduced by having an article on every Pokèmon but I think both wikipedia and those looking for Pokèmon information would be better off on their own wiki. The same goes with the character and episode guides for television shows. Even Hamlet does not have his own article (but apparently every other character does). It would be nice if there was a way to have an expansive article without having to spin off new articles. I'm sure there are many editors that have been struck by a decision to spin off a section to a new article and then the spin off is AFDed to be deleted or merged back in! Wikipedia seems to react to technical problems ignorantly instead of fixing the technical problems. We don't really need a stub type for every category, yet we have them because no one has solved it the programatic way. — Enough of a tangent. That part of WP:NOR has intrigued me a few times and I can never seem to find it when I want to. Would a list of memes in 4chan's article qualify under it? It is nigh impossible to verify them reliably but I'm sure if you visit /b/ for a day you will most likely see some of them (at least the ones that are in style at the time). It also reminds me of something fraom Brian Peppers; It would be OK by WP:OR to take A→B B→C and say A→C even though people were saying WP:NOR would forbid it. kotepho 19:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1
|
|
[edit] Userpage protected
Regarding THIS Wish I could say THANK YOU. But it was the only reasonable thing you could have done to prevent this ridiculous situation from being further blown out of all proportion. So I understand. I would like to request, though, that 2 images be restored; the HUG from Shauri I had under the Awards section and Nufy8's HeavyWeapons screenshot from mid-page somewhere. So if you would please restore them, or unblock the page just long enough for me to, you shall have my thanks. I'll settle for this as a reasonable compromise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User Harpercanada
I am concerned about the motives of user Harpercanada. Following his\her contribution history, it seems that the user is simply using Wikipedia to advertise Harpercanada's products. Prometheus-X303- 18:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for fixing MicroVAX vs Micro-VAX
I notice you've moved Micro-VAX to MicroVAX. This move is the first admin action I've ever requested, so I'm not sure whether thanking you like this is the Right Thing, but: thanks! —Chris Chittleborough 20:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I get nervous too, but IMHO thanking someone is never the wrong thing to do :) Ashibaka tock 20:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The AfD of Encyclopædia Dramatica
Glad you changed your mind. Ifnord 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Official Dreamcast Web Forum
I have Verified Official Dreamcast Web Forum using web.archive.org [7]. Anyting's Posible--E-Bod 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyvios
Hi, this is regarding a set of copyvios which I had reported. A set of 5 images (Image:Rani of Jhansi1.gif through Image:Rani of Jhansi5.gif) are taken from here. Don't you agree that these are copyvios? I am asking since I would like to be educated on the point of what exactly come under non-copyvio. Best regards, ImpuMozhi 04:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- They appear to be fair use quotations, although it's a little unusual. I left them for someone else with more experience to clarify. Ashibaka tock 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slashdot subculture
I don't understand why this discussion has been closed and archived after only 24 hours or so. Surely the point of the week's listing on AfD is to build consensus through discussion?Vizjim 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- It became clear in only 24 hours that there was no consensus to delete. I closed it as WP:SNOW. Ashibaka tock 15:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, to quote some salient bits from the page you just pointed to - This is not policy. Citing it as such is a great way to make yourself look silly.. The article goes on to say that "one of the major reasons for process is building consensus. Aborting process because someone thinks the conclusion is obvious relies on an assumption on the part of that person; it may be wrong. If we had an infallible person, there may not be any need for process; as we don't, there is. Furthermore, potential contributors would would like to know that their contributions were entering into a space where some rules and some process did exist. Aborting process may eventually send good contributors away." Certainly, it's quite irritating that you appear to have decided that those who believed the article should be deleted couldn't make a strong enough case over the normal seven-day period to attract an absolute majority. Is there any chance of re-instating this AfD, please?Vizjim 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was policy. I meant it would be a waste of time to finish off the AfD on such a relatively unimportant article which has information which cannot be found elsewhere and a good amount of support for keeping it. If you'd like to play this thing out to the end, go ahead and reopen the discussion, but it should be really clear from the way it started out that there are a lot of people voting either way and there is no firm consensus for deletion. Ashibaka tock 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Surely we should allow the debate to finish so as to not act high-handedly? I mean, I trust you aren't stating that you know what's good for the community...Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, if you want to reopen it, go ahead, and replace the {{afd}}. That goes for any AfD that gets closed as "keep" before its time is up. Ashibaka tock 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all; it should never have been up in the first place. It's an obvious call well-grounded in common sense. That being said, you haven't answered my question. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, I just wanted to save people the effort of expounding their thoughts on Wikipedia policies, having arugments, etc. It wasn't about knowing better than anyone else. Ashibaka tock 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very well. I had wondered if you considered that there was an incongruity between your actions here and your comment on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates, which has to constitute one of the nastiest remarks I've seen there in a long time, especially from a fellow admin. After all, it wasn't that long ago that you decided you knew better than no less than four other sysops. What changed your mind? Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I carefully reviewed my comments on that page before posting them and decided that they weren't a personal attack, although they were decidedly laced with sarcasm. In both cases I have been acting a little out of line, but I am not yet mindful enough to simply look at a discussion and know exactly the right thing to do, so sometimes my attempts are a little sloppy. If it hadn't been for the February wheel war I would have simply undeleted {{User review}} but I now know that to be the absolute wrong thing to do. Ashibaka tock 17:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Despite this it looks like User:Grue has done just that. Ashibaka tock 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Very well. I had wondered if you considered that there was an incongruity between your actions here and your comment on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates, which has to constitute one of the nastiest remarks I've seen there in a long time, especially from a fellow admin. After all, it wasn't that long ago that you decided you knew better than no less than four other sysops. What changed your mind? Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, I just wanted to save people the effort of expounding their thoughts on Wikipedia policies, having arugments, etc. It wasn't about knowing better than anyone else. Ashibaka tock 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all; it should never have been up in the first place. It's an obvious call well-grounded in common sense. That being said, you haven't answered my question. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, if you want to reopen it, go ahead, and replace the {{afd}}. That goes for any AfD that gets closed as "keep" before its time is up. Ashibaka tock 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Surely we should allow the debate to finish so as to not act high-handedly? I mean, I trust you aren't stating that you know what's good for the community...Mackensen (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was policy. I meant it would be a waste of time to finish off the AfD on such a relatively unimportant article which has information which cannot be found elsewhere and a good amount of support for keeping it. If you'd like to play this thing out to the end, go ahead and reopen the discussion, but it should be really clear from the way it started out that there are a lot of people voting either way and there is no firm consensus for deletion. Ashibaka tock 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, to quote some salient bits from the page you just pointed to - This is not policy. Citing it as such is a great way to make yourself look silly.. The article goes on to say that "one of the major reasons for process is building consensus. Aborting process because someone thinks the conclusion is obvious relies on an assumption on the part of that person; it may be wrong. If we had an infallible person, there may not be any need for process; as we don't, there is. Furthermore, potential contributors would would like to know that their contributions were entering into a space where some rules and some process did exist. Aborting process may eventually send good contributors away." Certainly, it's quite irritating that you appear to have decided that those who believed the article should be deleted couldn't make a strong enough case over the normal seven-day period to attract an absolute majority. Is there any chance of re-instating this AfD, please?Vizjim 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiFur talk on Japanese Wikicity
Hi there! I'm the founder of WikiFur, and I noticed we were getting a few visitors from the Japanese Wikicity, some from your talk page there. I tried translating it, and it seemed that they had problems with the content of our article on 2ch. I was wondering if there was any need to improve the article? It is admittedly rather bare now and could do with further descriptions of the furry fandom's interaction with 2ch, but I do not have the translation skills to do so myself. GreenReaper 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Short block
Exactly. If you scroll down the edit history page, I've been presenting necessary factual information with the edit summaries. I've been requesting user:Alanmak at his talk page to provide edit summary, and to bring the disputed matter to relevant talk pages. All efforts were fruitless, for he's disregarding all these facts and requests. He deletes others' message on his user talk page, and he kept calling me and other Hongkongers sinophobic with the edit summary, without actually explaining his rationale to the edits. Warring is not helpful, as you've said, blocking neither. I'd like to hear from your opinion on how I should deal with such a person. Thanks. — Instantnood 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't just look into one single article. User:Alanmak's edits are not only reverted by me. There're other people, including as least one administrator, following his edits. " Revert way too much " is, IMHO, not quite a valid reason to block anybody. The disputed matter has been left unresolved for months, and so far few unbiased people have managed to steer the matter towards settlement. Blocking simply isn't that helpful at all, and arbitration is not really helping, except delaying. — Instantnood 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you've followed a bit of the trouble, you'll know mediation, unfortunately, wasn't quite possible to get the matter towards settlement. If that's practical the trouble won't keep going, and I don't have to seek your assistance at the moment. — Instantnood 12:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- First, be careful that the first and second cases are indeed one case.. for the first one was not closed accordingly to the procedures, and was therefore reopened. The third case was not brought against me alone either. All cases, as well as all other mediation efforts, did not actually resolve the matter. If there's a solution nobody would have resorted to reverting again and again. — Instantnood 16:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
If all those undesirable things weren't happening, I guess there's a lot more we can do. — Instantnood 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another one
Time to add this to your list :-). NoSeptember talk 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD Date
Cool date on your AfD GNAA ;-)Bridesmill 02:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Bastard! I hope I don't get reamed for declaring a winner in the pool. :p But seriously, IHBT HAND. XD --Sporkot 04:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GNAA AfD nominations pool
Cool! I also find it amusing that my title for it was used. However, I'd completely forgotten about the nomination pool when I first saw the nomination on the list of humorous things that have happened around here today. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Content dispute vs Wiki policy violation
I would appreciate your advice over your comment regarding my Admin Noticeboard request concerning ScienceApologist and Plasma cosmology. I'd like to know how to distinguish between a content dispute, and a dispite that requires admin intervention.
I thought that any contravention of Wiki policy, potentially requires admin intervention. But it seems that any contravention of Wiki policy over content, is deemed a content dispute, irrespective of whether Wiki policy is contravened.
It seems that only contravention of 3RR, or obvious vandalism of page, gets action, that is, policy violations that requires no judgement calls by admins? Which means that all other Wiki policy is pretty much unenforceable? --Iantresman 14:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you see, the Admin's Noticeboard is for indisputably bad stuff. 3RR can be verified without having to know the basis of the reversions. When you have a disagreement between users, like you do, you use our extensive dispute resolution process. Apparently, you already requested mediation, so you know that. Ashibaka tock 16:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- +1 Informative Cyde Weys 16:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- One of Wiki's "three content-guiding policies" is verifiability. Surely something is indisputably verifiable, or it's not? --Iantresman 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infornography undeletion
This was deleted on prod and if I had seen it I would have saved it. The prod reason was Doesn't cite sources (barring the removed advertising), apparent neologism. and well, that is a silly reason for deletion. We have a cleanup tag for needs sources even. They obviously didn't try looking. We don't seem to have an article on the subject and I think we should. I'm not exactly sure if I should take this to DRV or what. I could just copy the text off of a mirror and it would have to be reprod'd or AFD'd anyways. Kotepho 21:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- There isn't a process for mistakenly prodded pages so I just undeleted it. Please add the sources you have. Ashibaka tock 21:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- ありがとうございました Kotepho 22:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] grono.net invite
sure mate, but it's a polish only webite so I'm not quite sure do you still want it...if you do drop me a line at [spam blipped] :)
[edit] Lolicon
Just out of curiosity, in this edit, you removed the image from the top of the article. Why was this? I'm guessing it may have been a mistake, removing it along with the NPOV tag... Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Removing the image was meant to solve the NPOV issue brought up by Hipocrite. Ashibaka tock 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
I already knew that. That's why I plan to wait 23.5 hours before re-inserting the photo again.
Primetime 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I've replied to your comments on the article's talk page.
[edit] User:Hpuppet
I think this editor is a sock puppet. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 23:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I left you a message
Kotepho 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Rather mysterious thing for other people to see on this talk page. Mysterious messages are fun. Ashibaka tock 01:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you for noticing!
It felt so good to read your thank-you note! I can still feel the wikistress melting away. What a great feeling. Cheers! --James S. 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Matsuo Bashō
As I said at Wikipedia:Peer review/Matsuo Bashō/archive1 I am trying to create a map of Matsuo Bashō's travel. However, I am having trouble figuring out his exact route. Could you provide the destination and points along one of his routes? --maclean25 07:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to read some biographies of Basho and rewrite the article from scratch. I have a copy of the Narrow Road to Oku with notes and maybe that will help. Ashibaka
[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2
|
|
[edit] Community Portal Redesign
I noticed that the Community Portal's design was changed, with the edit comment saying that consensus was reached. After reading the discussion, it doesn't seem like any consensus was reached. I started a discussion on the Community Portal talk page — J3ff 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Game (game)
Please observe the consensus attained by DRV to keep The Game (game) deleted. With due respect, I think you are not impartial enough to restore the page based on verifiable sources being found; please relist it on DRV first. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, and I know Pegasus1138 agrees (see Talk:The Game (game)). Since you are the only one who's really edited the page since its recreation, you could delete it and move this all over to WP:DRV. Mangojuice 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I considered it a kind of open-shut case, unless if other people know something about the reliability of De Morgen that I don't. But I guess I'm wrong. Ashibaka tock 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
(I took a Wikibreak-break because there are computers everywhere I go and I check my watchlist by habit... looks like I couldn't help but get involved in yet another dumb flamewar so I will avoid the AfD and get back on break Ashibaka tock 01:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC))
Hopefully you'll run across another computer so that you can help with the reference you added to the article. The link you provided goes to a login page... one which appears to require you to be an actual physical subscriber to the newspaper in order to gain access. (I'm going off of machine translation there, but I'm inclined to believe it's correct because I tried every possible combination under the sun to get an account, and I couldn't do it.) I'm hoping that you can help us get to a point where our readers can actually access the article. —Seqsea (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- There was a scanned image of it posted earlier, it's in the page history. Unfortunately they don't give you even a peek of their archived articles. I thought Kotepho transcribed it. Ashibaka tock 13:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did, but I don't want to post it on Wikipedia as an obvious copyright violation. If you want a copy leave me an email address or send an email to kotepho at google's mail thing. ...Not that this page is in my watchlist or anything... Kotepho 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I know where the image is, and there's already a translation on the talk page. I was just hoping that we could have some access to the article for our readers.... Do you speak Dutch? Can you try to find some free reposting or something of the article? Sorry to be ruining your wikibreak :( —Seqsea (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)
[edit] Talk Ex-Yugoslavia
Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar
[edit] Hamilton County Democratic Party
Hi. Any response to your e-mail regarding permission? If not I think enough time has elapsed for deletion. Mark83 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Um... the guy replied using the webmaster's e-mail address, asking how to give permission properly; I forwarded him to Wikimedia; they gave him a lot of legal details. I don't think it's copyvio. Ashibaka tock 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1WW Refactor
Please see Refactor and New discussion.
You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.
Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.
At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.
I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.
I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:1911
Can you just undo what you've done to the 1911 template, please. Lots of spurious stuff is now appearing in all articles that use the template. Thanks. Noisy | Talk 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I notice you edited the source code for the above template. Unfortunately there is a missing </noinclude> which results in the noinclude text appearing in articles with the template. Could you correct this please? Thanks in advance. Green Giant 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry!! Even with preview I missed that. Just fixed it now, thanks for the note. Ashibaka tock 16:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alanmak
It looks like User:Alanmak, and to a lesser degree User:Instantnood (who has already been dealt with using specific page blocks), has gone on a reverting rampage again. Just about every one of User:Alanmak's edits in the past few days have been reverts, some of them mass reverts that reinsert spelling errors. Please see what you can do, because I'm not having any success. --Jiang 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Instantnood
Take a look at my edits when Instantnood isn't around. Then look again at Instantnoods history with being a revert warrior under Arbcom sanction. Then think again about a suggestion I take a wikibreak. Maybe the suggestion about a wikibreak should be imposed on the one Arbcom ruled against. You're right I'm pretty ticked, I'm ticked that Instantnood can come to Wikipedia, get two arbcom sanctions within a year, then continue the behavior Arbcom found at fault TWENTY TIMES A DAY, and yet he skates through while admins institute blocks and bans against the people trying to keep his asinine edits in check - instead of the one causing the problem. SchmuckyTheCat 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- As insane as this might sound, Instantnood is trying to help, and has shown himself to be nothing but civil (although he has a tendency to not take "no" for an answer). I don't see why his page block should turn into a full block right now. Ashibaka tock 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- He's not trying to help when he goes back to an article every two months and restores edits that the rest of the community already removed. He's not being civil when he comes to an article, reverts three times in 90 minutes, then waits 24 hours to come back and repeat the cycle. I don't care if he is page blocked or full blocked. In fact, I'd prefer that he not be fully blocked. But if he's edit warring on pages, then block him from those pages. Tony Sidaway blocked him from half a dozen pages yesterday with a note expressing that he'd like to see Instantnood stop the revert behavior but all he did was move to a different set of articles! That's great for Tony to assume good faith and express a positive tone (in fact, I love him for that all over the rest of Wikipedia). However, if 'noods reaction is just keep reverting on a different set of articles, then he needs to be banned from those articles too. SchmuckyTheCat 02:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your complaint makes good sense, I'll expand the page ban. Ashibaka tock 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! It's appreciated, really. SchmuckyTheCat 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- FYI: it's necessary to go to the talk page of each banned article and add {{User article ban|Instantnood|14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006|~~~~}}. I'd do it for you, but I don't think that'd go over so well. But you can just cut and paste that text this way: Talk:Las Vegas Sands, Talk:Share taxi, Talk:Estádio Campo Desportivo, Talk:Douhua. Also, I wouldn't mind if you'd look at the appropriateness of his editing on Hong Kong as well, to notice he is trying to re-insert information removed from the article a year ago and not discussing it until after exhausting his 3RR, and then replying to my commentary (designed for bystanders, not 'nood) on the talk page. He played 3RR one day, then came back 24 hours later and started up again, obviously gaming 3RR. thx. SchmuckyTheCat 06:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your complaint makes good sense, I'll expand the page ban. Ashibaka tock 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- He's not trying to help when he goes back to an article every two months and restores edits that the rest of the community already removed. He's not being civil when he comes to an article, reverts three times in 90 minutes, then waits 24 hours to come back and repeat the cycle. I don't care if he is page blocked or full blocked. In fact, I'd prefer that he not be fully blocked. But if he's edit warring on pages, then block him from those pages. Tony Sidaway blocked him from half a dozen pages yesterday with a note expressing that he'd like to see Instantnood stop the revert behavior but all he did was move to a different set of articles! That's great for Tony to assume good faith and express a positive tone (in fact, I love him for that all over the rest of Wikipedia). However, if 'noods reaction is just keep reverting on a different set of articles, then he needs to be banned from those articles too. SchmuckyTheCat 02:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Kotepho
I moved my userpage away and had someone delete the redirect so I had a redlink for a userpage. I even stopped using a custom sig. I'm not sure if I am going to keep it this way forever, but for now I would rather leave it empty. I've only semi-left; I'm not really contributing to article space. I really haven't been able to make up my mind. Kotepho 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mirror Moon - AFD and Revolve (translation group) - AFD
Figured you might be interested or would want to weigh in. Kotepho 20:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image restored
Hi Ashibaka, this is about your edit of March 24. I think the Image:KKK holocaust a zionist hoax.jpg is very important because it documents KKK's Holocaust denial. I have restored it, if you see a problem with that, let's discuss it further at Talk:Ku Klux Klan. Usually I would discuss this in the article's talk page, but I did not want to make you uncomfortable. Regards. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
