User talk:Ideogram: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:26, 20 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Ideogram, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome

Hello Ideogram, Welcome to Wikipedia.
Thank you for the very kind message you left for me. It came as a very pleasant and welcome surprise. I think Wikipedia has a lot of potential, although it has its detractors, but I'm glad you've decided to make up your own mind about it and the best way to do that is to get involved. In the long run things usually work out well, and there are lot of very capable and dedicated editors here that ensure the integrity of the project is protected as much as possible. (The abilities of the various monkeys here are diverse but the mix seems to work.) Please let me know if there's anything you ever need help with and I look forward to hearing from you. Once again, welcome! Rossrs 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for fixing my talk page after vandalism. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Inhuman

How can anyone human revert so much vandalism? --Ideogram 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Go have a look at Recent Changes, at any given moment there are dozens of vandalized pages, as fast as you fix them, more appear. Having nothing much else to do helps, too (I'll be busier tomorrow...) – Qxz 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MedCab Case

Not until 18:03 UTC, but after that time; if you desire to close it, you may. Somitho 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno's paradox mediation

Sorry for the delay in responding, but, yes, it was fine to close that case. I was never contacted by the initiating party. However, in keeping the page on my watchlist, it seems as though there are still some substantial disagreements and possibly a slow edit-war going on. I wouldn't be surprised to see a reappearance of this dispute somewhere. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHINA help

Hey, I just want to pop in and thank you for your recent help in finding and evaluating China related articles. There are quite a few of them, so it is a daunting task.

Incidentally, in my evaluations, I find it useful to rate the importance of the article at the same time that I assess it. That way, it is "finished" and fully categorized. (I'm a perfectionist, I know) I realize that rating importance is a much more subjective process than assessing the article, but give it a try. There is no harm in changing it later if need be. --Danaman5 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all of the rating of importance that you have done, I gather that you disagree with a good number of my ratings. For example, you rate provinces as being of High importance. I rate according to the guidelines on the assessment page, which state that Mid rankings are for things important in China, and things of High importance have had some impact outside of China. Things like the Ministry of Health (China) and Yunnan province are important in China, but have not had much impact outside of China, thus my ranking of "Mid".

You shouldn't take this comment to mean that I object strenuously to your rankings. I certainly won't be changing them back or anything. I'm just giving you my spin on it. Besides, going through and rerating everything that I have rated must be really tedious. I remain impressed with the work that you have done for WP:China. --Danaman5 06:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The main reason I decided to rank provinces High is because there is an imbalance between the High and Mid categories. I already see a lot of High importance articles that I think should be Mid, and I'm preparing for that by lowering the bar for what constitutes a High importance.

Also, as you know, provinces in China are the size of countries in Europe.

If other people agree that provinces should not be High, I will certainly change them back. --Ideogram 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Status

Ideogram, I think the phrase "Whereas the Republic of China administers themselves as an independent sovereign country with a democratically elected President and government" does have a place in the article. I think it is one point both the green and blue camps agree upon. I think it should be left in to balance the argument from the PRC. Wenzi 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss with the other editors on the talk page. --Ideogram 04:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GimmeBot on Go (board game)

GimmeBot will be through in a few days to build the articlehistory template; he's getting through them as fast as he can, and I'm just doing some of the prep work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East of Eden

I am going to close this case. Catbird222's haughty attitude and comments show that (s)he wants the Cabal to approve of actions that (s)he has taken. G e o. Talk to me 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem G e o. Talk to me 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Why I need help? Because neither side wants to give up any ground whatsoever; some want the image at the top like a normal article, others. It doesn't seem like there is going to be much consensus... · AndonicO ^Talk 10:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone is helping you now, but let me note that you do have the option of declaring the mediation insoluble and walking away. --Ideogram 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPTAIWAN

I'll upgrade it. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional Chinese musical instruments

Since you were so dead-set on moving this page (without any discussion), you had better now fix all the redirects. It should just be about a day's work. Badagnani 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done. --Ideogram 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not--there are at least 50 pages that link to the old name. Badagnani 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are an idiot. I only have to fix double redirects, not single ones. --Ideogram 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt you must change the title of the article, you must fix all of the redirects (this is the way a real Wikipedian behaves). The use of insults is very poor form, and un-Wikipedian. Badagnani 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, if that was true, how did all these redirects happen in the first place? --Ideogram 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, obviously, you changed the name of the article today (without any discussion). Badagnani 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please think. If I created one redirect, where did all the double redirects come from? --Ideogram 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now implying that I am not thinking? I think, in fact, that I am the one that created most of the articles about Chinese instruments in the first place. Regarding your question, I've just gone through all the broken links and find that all of them, as I have stated twice now, are now broken because of your change, today, of the article's title. The broken links direct to Traditional Chinese musical instruments, which was the title of the article before you changed it, today. Thus, they all need to be fixed. If you want to change the title, you have to put in the work. It's part of working here. Badagnani 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You went through all of them? That was fast. Would you mind listing some of those broken links here so I can fix them? --Ideogram 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through most. To find them, simply go to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments, then look to the left. Under the search bar, there's a link that says "What links here." Click that, and all the redirects show up. One goes through, finds the link in each article, and fixes it. That's the correct way to deal with a page change. Unfortunately there is no automatic way to do this. Badagnani 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. You said the links are broken. I take that to mean that when you click on one, you don't get to the right article. Is that what you mean? --Ideogram 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the redirect from TCMI to LoTCMI, the links will work, but as redirects. They should be fixed, however, and correct WP editing practice is that the page-name-changer is the one who does this. Badagnani 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find policy that states this, I will do it. Otherwise, I have better things to do than to argue with you. --Ideogram 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kafziel now tells me that those fixes do not need to be made (although in the past they were done), for the reason that leaving the redirects saves WP bandwidth. Badagnani 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4RR

You've just reverted 4 times in a 24-hour period. Didn't you know that isn't permitted? Please change the edit back now, or give me a reason why I should not report you for this (added to the fact that you are repeatedly removing a valid link, something I personally would consider vandalism). Thanks. Badagnani 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to the same article, idiot. Click on the damn link you are so proud of and see what you get. --Ideogram 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kafziel ^Talk 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of redirects. I've been going through CAT:CSD (which is how I found you in the first place) and I keep running into your work. A redirect does not need to be deleted just because nothing links to it. They are also used for when people actually search for a term. If it's a pretty reasonable variant (like Historical capital of China redirecting to Historical capitals of China, then it's fine where it is.

Furthermore, since the moves you're making are obviously causing concern with at least one other editor, the right thing to do is to use Requested Moves and let the community come to an agreement on the right location. Kafziel ^Talk 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that redirects can be useful when they correspond to something someone might type in, and I have left some redirects alone that I felt qualified. I can certainly be more careful in that regard. I have moved probably twenty pages already and this is the first time someone complained. I am trying to bring some rationality to Chinese related article names, and it will slow me down immensely if I have to ask for permission for every move. --Ideogram 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to get our users to the information they need, and I'm glad you agree that someone typing "Chinese instruments" getting to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments is a good thing. I myself do a large amount of work on Chinese musical instrument articles, and often type "Chinese instruments" in the search box in order to get to the aforementioned article, to save keystrokes. Badagnani 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, we got off on the wrong foot and that was my fault, for which I apologize. I hope you realize that up until now I have indeed been fixing all redirects, even single ones, as you recommended. But I really don't want to fix all fifty of these unless I have to. --Ideogram 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of Requested Moves is kind of to slow things down. Wikipedia works on consensus; if you see that people disagree with what you're doing, you should slow down. What seems rational to you might seem irrational to someone else; let more people weigh in to see who is right. Don't worry: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Everything will be sorted out in due time. Kafziel ^Talk 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true enough, and I will keep it in mind. For what it's worth, I'm done with the subtask of fixing List-type articles so I probably won't be making more page moves soon. --Ideogram 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Highlifepony.jpg

It's Miller time!
Good talk, guys. Thanks to both of you for bearing with me and keeping up the conversation. Looks like we've all come to a good understanding, and that's all anyone can ask. Some people would give you a cup of tea for that, but this argument deserves a beer. So sit back, relax, and have a cold one on me. Kafziel ^Talk 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guqin

The removal of guqin templates was not helpful, hence my revert there. Badagnani 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does that answer my point? Are you capable of distinguishing between edits that serve different purposes? --Ideogram 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't correct to remove the guqin template from the article. CharlieHuang, a guqin specialist who edits here and created most of the guqin articles, created it for a reason. Try to first introduce and acclimate yourself to some of the Chinese music articles, and we'll be very happy to have you, working together to build our Chinese music articles into the best they can be. Badagnani 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still aren't answering my point. You can replace the template without undoing all my other work. No one owns an article. --Ideogram 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And, equally, you could have made uncontroversial copyedits without removing a template that you knew other editors objected to your removing previously, in other guqin-related articles. Badagnani 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so because I didn't split up my edits you have the right to revert me entirely? What if I removed the template first and then made my copyedits so you couldn't revert the first without reverting both? And you were the first to object. Do you ever listen to yourself? --Ideogram 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true, because in this page I did go back and replace most of those other edits of yours. Badagnani 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only after I complained. Your first instinct was to revert me entirely, and you did this to me three times. If your only issue was the template, all you had to do was copy and paste one line back in. You clearly are prejudiced against all my edits. --Ideogram 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaracterisation

Regarding this edit, your statement: We can't really force them to discuss. Once you get them talking to you, we can mediate. If you can't do that, I will have to close this case really isn't a fair characterisation of the situation. I find your statement offensive, given that no one bothered to inform me of the "mediation attempt". Please strike your mischaracterisation of my actions. Guettarda 06:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when someone points out that your false accusations are offensive, your reaction is to move up to insults? That is your idea of civil behaviour? Again, I ask you to strike your offensive mischaracterisation of my actions...and maybe, just maybe, try communicating with other people without the insults. Guettarda 07:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in continuing this conversation. --Ideogram 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then simply strike your mischaracterisation. Is that really so hard? Guettarda 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post here again. Any further posts by you here will be removed. --Ideogram 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you have now escalated from mischaracterisation (which totally fails to assume good faith), to insults, to threats? I am simply asking that you strike your offensive comments. I never said that you intentionally acted in bad faith, but your failure to strike the comments, your failure to assume good faith, your use of insults, and now your incivil threats are totally unacceptable. I made a simple request. Please strike your comments, they are offensive. Guettarda 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in RfC

Sorry, I made a mistake regarding where to put RfC posts[1]. Apologies.--Shakujo 06:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 ::::Do not post here again.  Any further posts by you here will be removed.  --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
+:::::So you have now escalated from mischaracterisation (which totally fails to assume good faith), to insults, to threats?  I am simply asking that you strike your offensive comments.  I never said that you intentionally acted in bad faith, but your failure to strike the comments, your failure to assume good faith, your use of insults, and now your incivil threats are totally unacceptable.  I made a simple request.  Please strike your comments, they are offensive.  [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 ==Mistake in RfC==