User talk:Yaksha

If I've left a note on your talk page, then your talk page will be on my watchlist. You can reply there if you want.

If you leave a note here on my talk page, then I will be replying here unless otherwise requested.

Starry night

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Don't let the criticism get to you; keep up the good work. (Radiant) 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, --`/aksha 12:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are my hero! Great job. I think I sense a future administrator... :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the other-methods-tried section, you may want to include that I asked Wikizach to recuse himself from the medcab but he basically stated that he would not. That's outside of my statement area of the RFAR so I don't want to touch it myself... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Yaksha. Succinct summary of the issues, no inflammatory language, everything backed up by diffs. Well done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And wknight, i've added a mention of it (you asking Wikizach to recuse) into the Arb case now. --`/aksha 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ArbCom statement

There's one thing that you might want to change in your ArbCom statement. You mentioned the The Sponge Who Could Fly RM as evidence of a consensus against pre-disambiguation. The issue there wasn't really about disambiguation. The previous title included "(The Lost Episode)" as part of the name of the episode. There was some confusion initially that it was an episode of Lost. Also, you say "and that the moves where disruptive" when you mean were. – Anþony talk 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the arbitration case now opened it would be a good idea for you to not make any more moves until the case is resolved. Thanks. Thatcher131 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a need to stop the moves that have been going on for a month with consensus (many fulfilled Request Moves) and no complaints, then i believe the ArbCom will grant a emergency injunction. Someone has already bought up the issue as a "proposed temporary injunction", so i'm sure the ArbCom will take notice of it. Otherwise, i see no point in slowing down normal wikiprocesses just because a related ArbCom case is going. --`/aksha 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaksha, continuing to engage in conduct contested in an Arbitration case, at the very least is very detrimental to your case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why i even bother with these anymore. For my reply, refer to this talk page section. --`/aksha 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the issue is simplicity - you are in an arbitration about page moves, you are continuing to move pages, Thatcher131, an arbitration clerk has asked you to stop. If you do not, you may be blocked pending a more binding remedy from the Arbitration Committee. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has not issued an injunction. Elonka is entitled to her opinion in requesting one, but there's no reason to believe it will be granted. Until it is, the normal Wikipedia processes should prevail. That is, if Yaksha really is engaged in disruptive moves, he should be reported to AN/I and blocked under normal procedures. Elonka has already tried that, but nothing came of it since there's no evidence that the moves are actually disruptive. – Anþony talk 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer volume has been setting off alarms in the VCN for a while now, and jossi's assertion earlier seems to confirm that the VCN is not the only one that sees this volume of moves as disruptive. (As a tangential thought, you should read up on signature guidelines, Anþony) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is getting a lot of work done quickly disruption? Those most familar with the case have commended Yaksha for taking on such a large project. Again, if there really is evidence of disruption, there should be no problem with taking this to the normal channels. As for my signature, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. Please elaborate on my talk page. – Anþony talk 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, is there a WP policy that says that large quantities of edits or moves are inherently disruptive? It seems that moves should be judged by their merits, not by their quantity. If edits or moves are improving wikipedia, why should they be slowed down artificially instead of getting them done? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking any high volume of anything done quickly is considered disruptive, and it's why we have the bot bit, so that programs doing such tasks can be identified so that they are not banned. If suddenly scores of pages are moved from their original place, it is inevitable that people are going to complain. If she wants to continue with the page moves I suppose I can live with that, but she would NOT be hurting things to slow down. The pages will still be there in 5-10 minutes, half an hour, or however long to move. There is no reason for the speed and it's just going to get her in trouble. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"any high volume of anything done quickly is considered disruptive" Is that from a wikipedia policy or guideline? If so which one? And if it were truly "inevitable that people are going to complain" wouldn't someone have complained about the Buffy and Angel moves? I haven't seen a single complaint other than Elonka's. I think the lack of complaints on the vast majority of the moves in question demonstrates clearly that they aren't disruptive. I doubt that many people even noticed the moves happened at all (which is about the least disruptive situation I can imagine). --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:POINT. As well, I am complaining. Thatcher is complaining. Jossi is complaining. It is not just Elonka, as you say it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of POINT do you feel is applicable in this situation? It makes no mention of actions being disruptive based soley on quantity. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that it's Christmas, and many editors are not spending as much time on Wikipedia. Please, can we have mercy on those who have lives and don't want to (or can't) spend time on Wikipedia during the holidays? For example, TobyRush and Riverbend were involved in this dispute on a near daily basis, but have been on wiki-breaks since early December. Accordingly, can we please have a Christmas cease-fire?--El on ka 22:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people have complained, but none of those complaints have really been backed up by good reasons. Once again, if the moves are disruptive, then where is the {{mp4}} warning? Pressuring Yaksha to stop because you don't like it is not the same as giving real a warning because the moves are disruptive when clearly they are not. – Anþony talk 22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what, pray tell, is a good reason? I think the fact that as many people have come and asked about it would be matter for concern, and I don't think requesting her to slow down hampers her in any way, so what's the issue? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages to follow a guideline isn't a bad thing. Others have been similarly moving pages including admin Radiant! (talk · contribs). This is in very good hands at RFAR where a section with the word "Injunction" has gone unused by any ArbCom members. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before, i don't see why i have to slow down just to prevent myself from setting off some bot. If my speed is causing false alarms with a bot, then it's up to the bot owner to fix the problem.

Requesting me to stop moving pages is one thing, but telling me to slow down my moving because other people (or a bot) can't keep up with my speed...is utterly absurd.

In case you don't understand, let me spell it out for you. I'm on a dail-up connection - a very slow one. It takes time, a lot of time, for a page (and then the move tab) to load. If i wait for a single page to load, then the move tab, then move the page...before going onto the next page...i'm going to be here all night. And that's not even counting the time it takes for me to put episode titles through the search engine to see if they are unique. Instead, i open a lot of move and search tabs, and let them load. This way, i can come back to wikipedia a bit later, and click on all the "move page" buttons. --`/aksha 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is neither policy nor guideline that says doing high quantities of anything is disruptive. For instance, when I closed this MFD, I engaged in a high quantity of high speed deletions, and that was not a problem either.
The reason bots need former approval is that they run an automated process lacking human oversight, and we want to be sure that it works fine even in borderline cases. Poorly written bots have been known to disrupt quite a bunch of articles.
WP:POINT is about people who claim that "doing X is a bad thing" and seek to prove that by doing a lot of X (e.g. demonstrating the deletion process is flawed by making a dozen spurious AFD nominations). That doesn't apply here. >Radiant< 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on evidence page

Hey, Yaksha. I was reading over the arbitration evidence page, and I noticed a typo that you probably want to fix. You've got a subhead saying All page moves made to remove unneeded disambiguation where supported by consensus. I think you mean to say "...were supported by consensus. "Where" is referring to location, and changes the meaning: it could be read as saying "Where page moves are supported by consensus, they're fine" instead of "The page moves were supported by consensus". On a normal talk page a mistake like that wouldn't matter, and in an article I'd correct it myself, but I think we're not supposed to edit each other's comments.

I probably won't be able to present my own evidence till tomorrow (real life beckons), but what you and the others have put up so far looks great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah...uhh...i was defintely meaning "were supported by consensus". *sigh* i seem to do this an awful lot. Thanks for pointing it out to me, i'll go fix it right away. --`/aksha 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no biggie. The only reason I notice is that my father is a newspaper man, and would thrust articles with typos in my face and say, "What's wrong with this paragraph?" Copyediting is in my blood. That and printer's ink. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New diff for your evidence...

[1]. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --`/aksha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter x Hunter articles

Hi, I would like for us to resolve the article as soon as possible, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would continue to post so we can make the Hunter x Hunter articles as accurate as possible, in terms of both names and information. Many of the bios need to be re-written, and perhaps you could assist in it. I appreciate your consideration. --Mr. Toto 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the article content - I will get around to working on the hxh articles eventually. I'm a bit of a chronic procastinator, and i'm also involved in a massive Arbitration case right now. So with that, and Cristmas/New Years coming up, i'm afraid my wikipedia time is spread a little thin. I've got all the hxh articles on my watchlist, so i am keeping an eye on them.

As for resolving the naming issue, if you want to press it, Wikipedia has plenty of places for resolving disputes or getting outside opinions. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, i really can't be bothered continuing. I've said everything i can say, and everything that other people have said in previous "professional vs. common name" debates (which believe it or not, happens a lot). HxH isn't a very known anime, and it seems like other people don't consider it a very big deal, figures...alternate namings is a widespread issue amoung anime/manga articles, since for the vast majority of anime/manga series, english versions exist primarily on the internet.

One of the principals behind all of our naming conventions is that we make things easy for the reader - we use common names, most widely used names, most recognised names...etc. I've never seen anything that talks about using names based on what's 'official' or even what's 'professional' (even the more academic areas of wikipedia tend to follow this. For example, biology articles stick to using common names over standard scientific names). In other words, the current naming guidelines support using the most widely used spellings. I see no reason why HxH needs to be an exception to it. If you've got a problem with the guideline, it's really up to you to take the inititive. --`/aksha 11:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

FYI, I deleted your user page after Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) created one for you. Let me know if there's something more to that. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing more to it. At least, not that i'm aware of. Wonder why he did it. Just out of curiosity, what did the page have on it? --`/aksha 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a comment . I can't imagine what the point was other than to provoke something. S/he is claiming that s/he was being helpful for a new editor - even though you've been here for eight months! Elonka has predictably jumped on the opportunity --- more grasping at straws [2]. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question about page moves

Hi, Yaksha. Before you file the Star Trek move requests, I wonder if you could take a look at WT:TV-NC#Procedural question. I think that it might make a difference in how the moves are received at ArbCom. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, i understand. I'll go reply over there. --`/aksha 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter likes Hunting

You are the one that has violated 3RR (your initial removal counts as a reversion) - I advise you to self revert and I will not report you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Matthew is wrong, a first edit is not a revert. Regardless, both of you should not be edit warring, especially over something as trivial as a tag. Page protected for now. >Radiant< 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm correct, it is a revert as she is reverting the addition of the tag (liek iz it wocket science ;o!?111!!) - also you have a conflict of interest, totally inappropriate for you to protect that page, also Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_temporary_full-protection_is_used_for: - you will notice the last revert was by YakSha at 1:33GMT. HTH HAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, argue with the man, that will help you out. -- Ned Scott 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You may want to crosspost that to (or at least, link it from) the talk pages of the involved arbiters, otherwise they might not see the remarks. >Radiant< 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Off to spam talk pages then =P --`/aksha 10:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Categories to Digimon articles

I can very well see your need to confront me about certain articles that I try to edit. For one thing, I think it's plain common sense that the Royal Knights are knights. Do you even realize what a knight is? A knight is one (usually a warrior) who dedicates themself to a code of ethics and to maintain order. Obviously that is what the Royal Knights do with their own code of honor. Also, the Jedi don't look like knights themselves and they are considered knights because they follow their own code of honor and ethics.

In your opinion, the Royal Knights are *obviously* knights. That's good for you. But opinion doesn't belong in wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability is very very clear. If you can't find a reliable source for your cats, don't add them in. Now i suggest you go read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and stop adding speculative categories to digimon articles. This is your last warning. --`/aksha 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the merging of so many Digimon articles seems highly inconvenient, it makes it harder for Digimon fans such as myself to find information on specific Digimon characters and topics. Besides, what makes Digimon articles so different from the many other articles on Wikipedia? So what if there are thousands of different articles under a certain category? If an article belongs in a certain category (Digimon or otherwise), it should be included. Unknown Dragon 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Redirects still exist. You can still hit any digimon name into the search box, or the url and get to where you want. The reason digimon articles are being merged is not because there're too many of them. It's because they're not notable enough to have articles on their own. We can merge them - into combined articles for characters which are notable. Or we can simply delete them - as this AfD demonstrates. Here's one which did result in a delete - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seasarmon. I recommend you go take a read of Wikipedia:Notability. --`/aksha 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not opinion, the Royal Knights are indeed knights, they even state this in the Anime and the Digimon X-Evolution movie about them having an order of their own to upholding peace in the name of Yggdrasil. If actually mentioning it in the series is not enough proof for you then I don't know what is. Fine, I will cease to continue putting the category about fictional knights in the Royal Knights article, as well as not to put any more categories in any more articles. But because you are prohibiting me from doing this, you have deprived millions of people who use Wikipedia of useful knowledge. Unknown Dragon 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you shouldn't add any more cats is because they're unverifiable (talking about which, I'm sure we have a guideline page somewhere about using categories appropriately, pity i can't find it now), and therefore against wikipedia policy. Which is probably why i'm not the only one who's been removing your cats. Not because i've finally bothered to dump a warning template on your talk page. --`/aksha 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, Yaksha, you are saying the Royal Knights are not knights? Also, what is a 'cat'? By the way, I understand both your reasoning, and will not take a side or cause trouble. I'm just curious. Bellahdoll 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll[reply]