Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:00, 2 April 2008

とある白い猫
A Certain White Cat
User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot ^edits | Sandbox SB2 SB3

^{JA TR Commons Meta}

Assume good faith!

Wikimood

[purge]	[edit]

Today is Friday, 6 September 2024, and the current time is 06:30 (UTC/GMT).
There are currently 6,879,089 articles and 924,603 files on English Wikipedia.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

The truth resists simplicity.

TALK PAGE OF とある白い猫

Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post comments below. Anything you put here will likely be archived and available for public view. Please be polite and civil.

{{{ovr|

To post a new topic please use this link or the 'new section' between "edit this page" and "history".

Archive

An advice from VG Cats to stalkers in general: #252

Posts

Hello

Hi, I was wondering if you were available to look into a matter. -- Cat ^chi? 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yessir, I'm free. For an hour or so anyway. How can I help? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 20:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle. Thanks. I picked you randomly so you are an uninvolved 3rd party. -- Cat ^chi? 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out when I get back (leaving the house for a while). Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. Please explain why the article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of PRS). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Cat ^chi? 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. Please explain why the article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of PRS). Jwri7474 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. What seems to be the mater? Can you give some links? -- Cat ^chi? 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":

http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties teach cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to cosmetics 15-30%)

There are many medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures, not only the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery". Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you are telling me all this. Which article/edit are we talking about that is in dispute? The details of the topic in question is your expertise so I will take your word for it. -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted the information on your talk page because you commented on my page, so I thought you were interested in helping with the situation. Sorry, if there was any confusion. The article I'm speaking about is the "Cosmetic surgery" article which now has been redirected to "Plastic surgery".Jwri7474 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help, so Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery are different fields? -- Cat ^chi? 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki on wikisource:el

I created more interwiki links on Greek wikisource, so if you have a chance, could you run interwiki again? thanks. Andreas ^(T) 14:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am holding back on interwiki linking on wikisource until all my bot flag requests on all my accounts on wikisource concludes. Also scanning an entire wiki is costly. If you could list the spesific articles I can deal with them individually. It would be more efficient. :) -- Cat ^chi? 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuna

Is fishing an art form?Thriley (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? -- Cat ^chi? 15:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess! related character articles

Hi, I was the author of most of these articles. I was wondering what is going on... :/ -- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jack M decided that my correction of TTN's mistaken redirection of the major characters of AMG into the list article was disruptive and against some mythical consensus. I'm asleep so I'm giving others some time to respond. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Since I have a COI I will wait for a while before getting involved. Good night and good luck. -- Cat ^chi? 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

So, White Cat... I have a Shadow Gelert character available. Want him? -^{(Doofallslya v^_^v)} Ékséj 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I do not quite understand. What is this about? -- Cat ^chi? 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it was an All Fools' Day joke ([1]). In truth, I had no idea you wouldn't respond until now. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I was offline for the most part of the past 48 hours. Could you explain what is this about? Granted the spirit of April 1 is gone but I would like to know. -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFA statement

Hello.

Could you please trim down/refactor your statement on WP:RFA? It currently stands much over the 500 word limit. — Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? It looks to be about 50 to me.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? -- Cat ^chi? 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's talking about Wikipedia:RFArb#Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and he's right. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yes. Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed you had two statements in different sections. I was, of course, referring the the long one. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot reduce it any more. It is mostly responses which wont be read if placed to the talk page. And I believe this is about WP:RFAR and not WP:RFA. -- Cat ^chi? 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You may refer to them in the main text, but unless you manage to trim it down to below (or at least near to) 500 words, I'll have no choice but to move things around myself. I'm sure you'd rather make that selection yourself. — Coren ^(talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very patient with arbcom and every wikipedia process. Agonizing me further on this issue concerning Davenbelle will only serve to upset me. Arbcom is mostly ignoring what I tell them on their own talk page. This is the only place I hope they'll pay attention to me. So please leave me some slack here. -- Cat ^chi? 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That was... throughly edited. You may want to maintain a summary of your position in addition to the link, however. The point of keeping the statement short is to avoid "tl;dr", which is not good for anyone. — Coren ^(talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only people made me not feel ignored things would be simpler. This comment/rant isn't aimed at you as clearly you are paying attention to my comments (at a minimum you are counting the number of words). :) -- Cat ^chi? 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem, right now, is that you're taking things way to personal. I would suggest you let sleeping dogs lie; you've been vindicated in your suspicions of JM, and there is little more that can be done, Arbs or otherwise. — Coren ^(talk) 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When people start not responding to you at all for months while talking to other people things get personal. When arbitrators act this way it is particularly unpleasant. This contributed more to my frustration than every other factor combined. If people (arbitrators or not) wish to ignore me they should show the courtesy of informing me of such an action. It is Davenbelles 6th account so... -- Cat ^chi? 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrected discussion from February

Hi, I just wanted to point out a follow up. :) -- Cat ^chi? 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at that. Seems I was partly wrong, so apologies as far as Merridew is concerned. Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists. Dorftrottel (troll) 11:00, April 2, 2008

I beg your pardon? -- Cat ^chi? 11:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

? What do you mean? Dorftrottel (complain) 12:06, April 2, 2008

What does "Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists" intended to mean? -- Cat ^chi? 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that I think e.g. that by far most episode articles are not articles in any encyclopedic way and for a complete and utter lack of available acceptable sources never can be and should therefore be wiped from mainspace. In other words, that content-wise I still agree with Merridew and believe that he did less harm to Wikipedia than the ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing "articles" e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources. But the sockpuppeting was clearly bad. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:00, April 2, 2008

@@ Line 170: / Line 170: @@
 :::? What do you mean? [[User:Dorftrottel#DT|'''D'''or'''<!-- -->ft'''ro'''tt'''el]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Dorftrottel|complain]])  12:06,&nbsp;[[April 2]],&nbsp;200<!--DT-->8
 ::::What does "Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists" intended to mean? --<small> [[User:White Cat/08|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/08|chi?]]</sup> 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
+:::::It means that I think e.g. that by far most episode articles are not articles in any encyclopedic way and for a complete and utter lack of available acceptable sources never can be and should therefore be wiped from mainspace. In other words, that content-wise I still agree with Merridew and believe that he did less harm to Wikipedia than the ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing '''"'''articles'''"''' e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources. But the sockpuppeting was clearly bad. [[User:Dorftrottel#DT|'''D'''or'''<!-- -->ft'''ro'''tt'''el]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Dorftrottel|complain]])  14:00,&nbsp;[[April 2]],&nbsp;200<!--DT-->8