Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan

Nikkimaria and WP:OWN

I've observed that User:Nikkimaria has been making changed to WP:Wikipe-tan without starting any sort of discussion. Now we've reached the point where Nikkimaria unilateral moved "WP:Wikipe-tan" to "WP:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Wikipe-tan". Nikkimaria has been active on Wikipedia since 2006, so we can't treat this as a case of a new user not being aware of a policy or guideline. Nikkimaria has been asked to participate in talk page discussion in the edit summaries of those who reverted her or him. Since Nikkimaria made this comment, it's reasonable to assume that Nikkimaria knows that she or he was engaging in edit warring or had seen the edit summary messages.

I'm going to leave her or him a message and ask her or him to discuss her or his proposed chances here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of making further changes to the page so long as it remains at the current title. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It would've been preferable to have started a discussion before making such a drastic change to the project page's title. Can you please explain why the current title is more appropriate than the older one? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the page is more suitable as a subpage of the A&M WikiProject. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that it would be more suitable. Wikipe-tan isn't a creation of that WikiProject. Kasuga39 created Wikipe-tan and publicized it on 2chan. Wikipe-tan's first Wikimedia appearances on were on Commons and Meta. Wikipe-tan was adopted by multiple WikiProjects. Wikipe-tan's popularity and usage extends beyond WikiProject Anime and manga. Wikipe-tan is a sort of Wikipedia cultural icon. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree, but in any case, Wikipe-tan can be used beyond this WikiProject no matter where this page is placed. This page is more suitable as a subpage of the WikiProject. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it more suitable? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because the general Wikipedia population shouldn't be subject to this wiki-loli junk. If the anime club wants it, let them keep it. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria didn't allow the WikiProject to have a say in this; she or he dumped it on their laps without any warning. I'll leave them a message, so they can have a say in which project pages should become subpages of their WikiProject. If they want it as a subpage, they can keep it as a subpage, but Nikkimaria shouldn't make that decision for them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

May Nikkimaria please answer my "Why is it more suitable?" question? She or he says "It's more suitable" as if it were a fact. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's one more case of editwarring, followed by the statement "I won't edit war if my version sticks". tedder (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the page move or not, it's certainly not edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back, because a page move of this nature without discussion is clearly trolling. The only thing that's changed since Nikkimaria started is some missing ELs which could go either way so I won't change those back at the moment. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, and I strongly object to your characterization of my actions as trolling. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Second. Nikkimaria shouldn't be mischaracterized as a troll. Nikkimaria is a long-term editor who became a sysop without much opposition. The lack of opposition tells me that community has a lot of faith in Nikkimaria's abilities. I just wish Nikkimaria didn't treat this subject as something unworthy of having reasonable discussions about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it's clear that Nikkimaria has been editwarring with MULTIPLE editors over the inclusion of certain few images. If Nikkimaria wants certain images removed, s/he should present their arguments as to why those images violate policies and guidelines or why those images are inappropriate for inclusion. I also find it disturbing that Nikkimaria is single handily forcing WikiProject Anime and manga to "adopt" the page without consulting the Wikiproject first. Pages should not be forced upon a Wikiproject without prior consultation. As for the move, I simply don't agree with it. The character has been adopted by other WikiProjects and the community at large, so making it a subpage of WikiProject Anime and manga would not be completely appropriate. Making it a subpage of WikiProject Anime and manga presents the character as wholly the "property" of WikiProject Anime and manga, something that will not sit well with WikiProject Anime and manga or the other Wikiprojects that have adopted Wikipe-tan. —Farix (t | c) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Move Totally unilateral move. Where is the consensus to do this? Is Nikkimaria declaring war to the editors who opposed such move in previous discussions ? --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also oppose move. There are similar pages in 26 other languages, several of which don't even have something similar to WikiProject Anime and manga. Simply because Wikipe-tan is widely known and used, not only by things related to anime and manga. In fact, she wasn't even created with that in mind. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "declaring war" on anybody - I thought that moving the page into WikiProject-space would be a good compromise position and allow the A&M editors freer rein. If that compromise is rejected, so be it. Tone down the rhetoric and the incivility please. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You shoved it over there, with no discussion. After you already got reverted for edits, which were unexplained at first. You're the one being uncivil. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, you have a clear pattern of edit warring over various images on the page. A further looking at the talk page archives shows that you don't even attempted to gain a consensus before removing images. Now, you've made a completely arbitrary move because you seemingly couldn't get your way.[1] This type of behavior is completely unacceptable, especially from someone with an administrator bit. —Farix (t | c) 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is policy, not incivility - the move was not "completely arbitrary" or because I "couldn't get [my] way", but an attempt at compromise. It was rejected - so be it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose the move, and I'm glad to see it moved back. This is a project page, not a WP:ANIME page. WP:BOLD is policy, but you apparently didn't heed the strong caution urged in WP:BOLD#Non-article namespaces and more specifically WP:BOLD#Wikipedia namespace. If you were attempting to compromise, it would have been better to start a discussion and explain what you wanted to do rather than just move the page (and all the archives of the talk page) without any discussion at all, especially when the page doesn't obviously belong where you moved it (see the points made above on this particular issue). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Given your previous edit history on the page and this comment,[2] you were obviously throwing a temper tantrum rather than being bold. Compromise is achieved through discussion, no by spatful actions that will obviously be contentious. —Farix (t | c) 11:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would strongly advise you against making inappropriate characterizations or attributing motives of which you have no knowledge. I had no reason to believe the move would be contentious, and now that I see that it is I have no intention of moving the page again. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For those adults in the room who can rise above the level of declaring that an editor active for five years is out to get them and hates them and shouldn't be allowed to stay over mom make her go away she smells, is there really any buy-in for the mascot in question from the community outside of the animanga project? That's really all that we need to answer here. If not, it makes sense for the animanga project to take custodianship of the page in question, as it's undoubtedly associated with that part of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Implying that people who disagree with you (or your opinion or an opinion you support) are essentially "children" is not productive. Please refrain from such comments in the future in order to keep the conversation on the level referenced at the beginning of your comments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was part of my reasoning for moving it. Someone asked above whether the WikiProject wanted the page; I'd be very surprised if the answer was no. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actully the wikipe-tan image is used over at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines, is used still on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit's userbox, is used as an admin icon, and is used over at Wikipedia:Admin coaching as wel las other areas. Wikipe-tan gets around on wikipedia, and can not just be called confined to the anime/manga project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Girl scout Wikipe-tan image addition on another project bit

Rather than get all heated up in an adit war I thought the civil thing to do is take the discussion here, User:Kintetsubuffalo is going around accusing people of trolling, for the addition of the sentence "In March 2010 this image was added to the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force but was later removed." that talks about the history of the image (okay for a page that talks about how wikipe-tan has been used around wikipedia?). So my question would be how is this sentence fingerpointing or a way to provoke others other than saying it was once used on the girlscout project? Id rather not have this goto ANI but nobody likes being called a troll either if what they were doing was in good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Buffalo is free to head to ANI, but when they look at his using "reverting troll" in edit summaries, I think that the incoming WP:BOOMERANG is going to leave quite a bruise. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of the project was to remove the image. [3] Though the consensus was weak, there was no support from the project to keep the image up. Taking a swipe at a project for removing an image hardly seems like a good faith. Incidentally, the 100th anniversary celebration is over, making the image out of date. EricSerge (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor who made the original edit should have been informed then (I told dino on his talkpage since) Now that the anniversary celebration is over as you have said this should be put to rest. The only thing the sentence states now is that the image was once used on the girlscout project but has since been removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a swipe at the girl scout project, hell they should be congratulated for realizing that it was a pretty bad idea. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The current caption, by my perception seems to take a swipe at the project for removing the image, especially coupled with some of the edit summaries restoring the caption. I propose this alternate text: "Wikipetan celebrating 100 years of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides, used in 2010 for the centennial celebration." It indicates the purpose of the image, and indicates it's past use. EricSerge (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if that is how you are taking it then the new caption you proposed sounds good to me. Although I would add "used in 2010 for the centennial celebration on wikipedia". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipetan celebrating 100 years of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides, used in 2010 for the centennial celebration on Wikipedia." Sounds reasonable to me. EricSerge (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done In the future though if an editor gets upset by another's edit they should inform them on this, User:Dinoguy1000 had made the edit that connected User:Kintetsubuffalo and nobody was informed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I never intended offense or anything of the sort when I expanded and sourced that paragraph; if I had known where the removal discussion was, I would (at the very least) have added a link to it (and, potentially, it would have led to me rewording the whole paragraph). As should be evident from my other edits to this page, my main interest on this topic is exploring and filling out the history of Wikipe-tan on Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general, and I would have gladly rewritten that paragraph in response to a non-confrontational message or edit summary. I certainly have no ill feelings towards Kintetsubuffalo, though they could definitely have been somewhat more graceful about the whole thing. —Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.90.208 (talk) ^{(what's this?)} 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)