Jump to content

User talk:Tyciol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chinese3126 (talk | contribs) at 22:44, 17 August 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Read BEFORE Posting:

    • Vandalism and other offensive commentary/trolling may be deleted expeditiously.
    • If you want me to respond/take your comments seriously, sign them with ~~~~.
    • Be sure to be signed in. Anonymous users may have their messages deleted without comment.
    • I will respond on your talk page, but I won't return there after that unless you've responded on mine. I'd rather be editing articles than monitoring your page for a reply.
    • Add your comments to the bottom of the page. If you minimize whitespace I will love you.
    • If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know nicely and I will address the issue.

    August 2009

    Redirecting

    Hi, again. I just found several more redirects you had made before I had contacted you initially.

    Let me be frank, do not make redirects to cast lists or character lists again for real people. I'm getting a bunch of these deleted because they really serve no purpose and red links are much better. I have seen that you are continuing to do this when red links may actually convince people to write the real articles. I don't want to discuss this with you, again, so this is my last message to you unless I come across more redirects you have made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As a courtesy, this is the thread (Archived) I started at WP:ANI about this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just deleted many more of these, plus assorted other unhelpful redirects that you created. Please don't create redirects to non-notable items, and redirects that are unlikely search terms. Thank you. Black Kite 10:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to bother reading through the four paragraphs you sent me. I'll say this: your redirect creation was bad and it has been determined by administrators and other members of the community that it was bad. You took common Japanese names like Masayuki or Kotaro and made redirects or disambiguation pages solely dedicated to the fictional characters and then you took random combinations of English names and made redirects. Red links are much more effective which is what I told you last time, because it does not matter if an article is made or not. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ALL OF THE REDIRECTS YOU MADE. I don't care if there are or are not articles on these people on either this or the Japanese Wikipedia. There is no need to take their given name and surname or their full name and redirect it to a tangentially useful article. If living people exist, and we have no article on them, then we have no page on them, which includes not having a redirect. When they become notable or someone else comes across the red link, an article can be created.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed your comments at ANI because they were all over and comprised about 5k of characters. Instead of responding all over the thread willynilly, just respond at the bottom in something that isn't essay length.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yuchun is an example of one of your bad redirects. "Yuchun" is a given name in China, and I can find multiple people listed on Wikipedia who have this name. That is why it should not be a redirect to Li Yuchun. It is equivalent to taking Michael and making it a redirect to Michael Jackson or Takeru and making it a redirect to Takeru "T.K." Takaishi. And there are other examples I could find, like your mashing together of names for other redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And Takeshi Kobayashi and Kobayashi Takeshi are also examples of bad redirects. He's a lyricist. He's in no way related to Haruka Ayase.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what the fuck is Asakeshi?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me say it plainly. A supermajority of the redirects you have made are implausible names, not typos, and have nothing to do with the pages to which these are redirected. All of them should be deleted. Do not make redirects for anything other than fictional characters to the lists of fictional characters. Portmanteaus are useless and making redirects for real people to people who they are not or films in which they starred are not helpful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a search engine for you to fine tune. I do not want a two paragraph reply to this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you not get it? That's a bad redirect. Stop making redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you stop? No one is going to be looking up "Elton Hercules", "David Charles Cunningham", "Ishii Leslie", or "Tsunehiko Kamijo".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I want psychic powers too! I better go get Miss Cleo to teach me. Hm, well I totally made a statement bout Elton, let's see how that turns out then I can review the other 3 to see if I can adequately explain my meaning for'm. Tyciol (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talkback

    Hello, Tyciol. You have new messages at Bettia's talk page.
    You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

    Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect

    • If they're character names that have a section in a "List of ... characters" section then that's fair enough. If they're minor non-notable characters that are just mentioned in the text, then they don't need one. Same for minor plot points, organisations in fiction, etc.
    • Linking people's names who don't have an article to places where they're a minor character etc. is confusing for editors who may want to create an article on a genuinely notable person of that name.
    • If someone's name is "Steven James Smith", then he doesn't need the redirects "Steven James" and "James Smith" unless they're well-known by one of those names. And they certainly don't need those redirects clogging up hatnotes and dab pages, that's completely misleading for the reader. You'll note that a lot of these were reverted by other editors before this subject was raised.
    • Linking common surnames to an article isn't worthwhile unless that person is known by their surname only, and I found examples where you linked surnames to one article where there were more than one person with that name, so it should've been a dab. I even found one example (Bavin) where you linked a common surname to a completely irrelevant subject.
    • Some of the redirects are even WP:BLP, for example the one I found linking minor people who were involved in a murder case to the murderer's article.
    • Linking redlinks back to the article they're already in is creating a circular redirect and shouldn't be done.
    • Black Kite 11:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Atsushi Okui

    I completely disagree with you. We have the Atushi dab page so anyone looking for her will find that in the search box, or they will use google. If and when there is sufficient sourcing to make an article about her then that will be created. Redirecting a person to a small portion of their work seems illogical to me and I agree with the criteria that it was speedy deleted under. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion Implausible is a very good word for it in this case. I think it is implausible that someone who is looking for information on a person will be placated with a link to a film they worked on once. I think they would prefer to see a red-link then be misled by a redirect to a film. It is not the only film she worked on, it does not define her as a person and it does not add to a reader's understanding in any way other than a short sentence saying she worked on the film. Woody (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to "add more data" find sources on her and create an article not a redirect. It is clear you disagree with my thinking, but it is clear from the ANI discussion that quite a few people agree with mine. If she isn't notable enough then she shouldn't be linked. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Woody: if she should not be linked, then perhaps take her off any disambiguation pages I added her to or something. But that has nothing to do with redirects. Creating a redirect doesn't create a link, rather it directs a user to information about the person in question if a link is later created by somebody else. That people agree with you is not of interest to me: WHY people agree with you is. If other people make good arguments supporting why this is correct, that's cool. The thing is: I don't know if she's notable enough to create an article about her.
    The objection to these redirects by Ryulong is that he thinks articles will later be created about these people. Therefore: he's the one suggesting articles be made about them, not me. As far as I know, when I redirect an unknown name to a work of fiction that they've done, as far as I know that's all they've done. Now, if they're listed on another page and a link is made to them, someone will follow that to the other work and think "hey, that's wrong, it shouldn't redirect to one or the other, but have a page which links to both". At that point, a person (often me, as I have upgraded these as I learn about subsequent notability) expands the redirect into an article about the person. Having a history as a redirect, it provides an already-existing link in the source so one has less work to do when creating that article. The history also shows the long-term interest that has existed in that person, which attracts better scrutiny by speedy-delete happy people who might otherwise rapidly delete a voice actress stub. Tyciol (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-creating illogical redirects

    I'll be quite clear about this. Some of your redirects are fine, some are debatable (and those can be discussed) - ones like this are utterly useless. Here's a Google search for "Elton Hercules" without his surname - no results at all. It looks like you're unaware how Western-style names and honorifics are used. You are making work for other users who have better things to do, and I would have thought, given the number of users who have expressed similar opinions here and on AN/I, that you would know better than to immediately recreate these. So - if you start re-creating more obviously pointless redirects like Elton Hercules, I will block you for disruption. Black Kite 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyciol, you wrote "For names that seem unusual like 'Bavin' I redirect under the assumption they are unique names (as many fictional and real famous people do create, their own names). If other people share the name, this does not eliminate the usefulness of a redirect."
    If a user types in the single word "Bavin", it is not clear what they want. So they are provided with a Search page, showing where in the encyclopedia the word Bavin appears and giving the context. The Search page GIVES THE USER A CHANCE TO CHOOSE, whereas the redirect forces them in one (possibly wrong) direction. Disambiguation pages are created only if there is a serious logjam of possibilities, because they must be maintained: otherwise they may accidentally hide the very article the user is looking for. Furthermore, creating a redirect changes a red link into a blue one, fooling people into thinking that an article has been created when it has not. It is far, far better that there should be NO article than a phantom article. The system works as is, and your redirects are breaking it! Xanthoxyl (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "What I am denying is that the solution is to delete it. The solution is to create a disambiguation page." No, in that case you (not other people) must create the disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Which means searching Wikipedia (and Google) for every important instance, and creating a well-formed page which follows the MOS. If you don't, other editors have to chase you all over the place trying to unhide all the possibilities which your redirects have hidden. The slapdash redirects are worse than nothing. If you still don't understand then please just concentrate on contributing text and forget about #R and dab. Xanthoxyl (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I will not forget about R/DAB, sorry, I know too much about it, an I'm very good at making both of them." Tyciol, you created about a dozen circular redirects on just one page! If you don't have time to make disambiguation pages, you certainly don't have time to type thousands of words in defence of these silly redirects. Are you sure you don't have editcountitis? Xanthoxyl (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "A redirect can be circular, but one person cannot make a redirect circular unless he makes both the link on the page and the link back to the page. I only make the link back to the page." Okay, I give up. Xanthoxyl (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sirs

    Tyciol, I am sorry that you have taken offence, but there is no-one on the PLANET who would search for Elton Hercules when looking for Elton John, and given that you put a hatnote on Sir Hercules - which is a racehorse - on the assumption that someone somewhere might search for Elton John by looking for Sir Hercules, then I can only suggest that your grasp of English naming conventions is not as sound as you think it is. And don't stalk me either - if you have something to say to me, say it on my talkpage Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll call it what I like thank you - the wikilink confirms what I'm talking about. And there is no knight called Hercules. You just really, really do not understand English naming conventions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will withdraw any suggestion of accusing you of stalking, wikistalking or hounding me. It was said in haste, and I regret not being more careful with my words as I can see how it would give offence, particularly as (in calm moment) I can see that it is not in any way justified. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ALSO, redirecting Sir John to Elton John is totally illogical. True, Elton John has been called Sir John, but so has Sir John Gielgud (stage actor) Sir John Barbirolli (conductor) Sir John Harvey-Jones (industrialist) John de Balliol (Scottish King) Sir John Betjeman (poet) Sir John Mills (film actor) Sir John Major (prime minister) Sir John Fastolf (Falstaff) Sir John Falstaff (Shakespearian character) Sir John Hawkins (admiral, one of Elizabeth I's seahawks) Sir John Herschel (astronomer)....and so it goes for 53970 returns for Sir John in the search. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The redirect is not illogical. I did not know of other Sir Johns. Had I known of them I would have improved it into a disambig. Rather than complain about it to get me blocked, had you requested I improve it, I would have. This would make a fine subsect for the John disambiguation page. Tyciol (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did YOU (yes you) not use the search to find out how many Sir Johns there are instead of just creating that totally ridiculous redirect? It takes less than 30 seconds to type "Sir John" in the search box and see what comes back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't remember my state of mind at the time, I sometimes get really caught up in editing and lose track of time so even obvious stuff like that doesn't occur. That is something I do need to improve upon. I still hold the objection that for some names, it simply is not very obvious (like names which look very rare, made up, fictional) and objections to those don't hold. But yeah, with Sir John (and probably also Sir Paul, Paul's probably not as common in England in John but there's bound to be another Sir Paul). That said: How many other Sir Eltons or Sir McCartneys are there? Those also got deleted, but while I could see another Elton possibly, probably not another Sir McCartney. Now, I am familiar with naming convention (Sir#Formaly styling: I know that listing Sir McCartney is not the proper way to name a knight. But I think it is a valuable disambiguation because other people may not be familiar with proper convention. It might also be used in modern contexts other than English knighthood. Tyciol (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk pages

    Do not refactor talk pages or entire pages as you've done at Talk:United States and stop making redirects. You've been warned about this multiple times over the past five days. If you do not get why we have an issue, that certainly does not mean you should continue acting in the way you had.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, you do not edit the archives to get your last word in.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't have an authority to tell me not to refactor talk pages, refactoring pages is useful for reading. You don't have the authority to tell me to stop making redirects. I have already explained WP:NOEDIT. I am open to changing HOW I edit, but will not simply stop editing altogether. I have been changing the method in which I edit, and have even avoiding the family names redirecting like you have suggested. As for archives: I am familiar with the policy on not editing article talk page archives, but not with policies surrounding the editing of archives for Wikipedia policy. Considering how these get archived in less than a week, there is an inadequate amount of time given for discussion. I can't help it if I'm unable to reply the day before it is locked away, so that's why I was asking if you wanted to start another topic or something. I would have been fine had you moved that reply out of the archive to the main page, I just didn't want to start a new topic myself, because I'm not sure what authority one needs to open an incident's report. I'll need to look more into it because I am not as familiar with incident reporting as the other people. Tyciol (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you get it yet. The community is telling you to stop refactoring talk pages and making stupid redirects. You won't get unblocked until you agree that YOU (yes you) are the problem, and even then, you are likely to be banned for good from making redirects and dab pages (see ANI). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an accurate summary: 'people' in the community are telling me to stop it, yes. The community itself: no. First off: my redirects are not 'stupid'. Nobody has ever made a valid argument demonstrating stupidity. There are objections regarding interference with search and misleading disambiguation with others who may share a name, or interference with red links which may encourage new articles, along with some unsupported thing about name fragments. I have already agreed that I have identified some problems with my editing habits that have led me to make some mistakes. However: many of my edits are smart. I still stand by Lubdan, it's a great example of how because of some mistakes, misunderstandings and disagreements about certain kinds of redirects that people have simply assumed all (or even the majority) of them are bad, when actually nobody has really looked at a significant number of them. Furthermore: talk page refactoring and redirects are 2 entirely different issues, so I would prefer to keep discussion of them separate please. They may be 2 problems I need to reach an understanding about, but I don't see any sort of crossover between the objections. Tyciol (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Blocked for disruption as discussed on your talk page and ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Given the number of edits you have done (over 5000 [1]), and the speed at which you have done them, as well as your apparent lack of understanding, I've changed your block to indefinite. This is in the interest of Wikipedia because it would be senseless to simply let the block expire after a week and let you come back and continue your activities. It is not a punitive block because you can easily get it lifted by demonstrating that you understand the reasons why a number of editors objected to your edits and that you agree to change your behavior, so hypothetically you could get unblocked today.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

    Tyciol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

    Request reason:

    I believe the block is unjustified

    Decline reason:

    Having read through all of this page, all of the WP:AN/I thread and a good percentage of your edits, it is quite clear that the block is absolutely not unjustified. And until you accept that this is so, and agree to modify your behaviour in accordance with comments made about your redirect and disambig technique, there is little chance of an unblock. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

    I was warned that I was being disruptive: but I disagreed with that, and I still do. Creating good redirects is not disruptive. No adequate reasons are given (nor thoroughly discussed) for the deletion of many redirects. Elton Hercules in particular, I recreated and listed on RfD (see here because it was never given a chance for discussion. Too much good faith is being put into the actions of speedy deletion taggers, and too little faith in the creators of redirects. I can see that User:Redvers deleted that simply with the same speedy deletion tag. Once again: no actual investigation (or at least, explanation of it) is presented, simply citing the standard reason associated with a tag, even though it is not at all applicable. I clearly proved the plausibility of the disambiguatory redirect through posting a URL on the above RfD.

    I do not understand how 'the number of edits' is reason for blocking. Furthermore, when you link to Ryulong's list: did you check the dates when they were made? The first one (Urine Therapy) was made in 2005, so I am not sure how going back 4 years in time is good for making a case for 'speed'. That's clearly a good redirect, as you can see someone even tagged it as a redirect which disambiguates capitalization here. I made it because there are references to it which are capitalized.

    Should I go on and explain each one? I think this should be evidence enough: that list is not appropriate in the slightest for making a case against me: most likely Ryulong just pasted every redirect of mine in there and assumed it was bad. This is incredibly clear to me: his list even includes entries like Lubdan which he has posted his ridiculous speedy deletion tags on and had administrators remove them. I could search through that list and point out probably at least a dozen which admins have turned down for speedy deletion. Why on earth would the total number of my redirects matter? What should matter are the contested redirects, so until someone can make a list of those so that I can actually confront them, I don't see how I am supposed to contest these accusations.

    So: what am I supposed to learn from this list? I am aware I've made a lot of redirects, but I believe the great majority are useful. It's possibly I've made some mistakes but I consider myself a well-intentioned editor with some degree of competancy. It is true that I have been making increasing amounts of them, this is mainly as I grow to understand more about disambiguation and redirecting, and how I become more imaginative in predicting the various mistakes and ommissions that people can make.

    I do have understanding of redirect policy. I have had disagreement over some concepts: but these are different issues. I would prefer if these were discussed distinctly: as in, rather than a huge list of 'bad' redirects, objectors can divide them into which specific objections they have. From what I recall: there's the family name issue (other people have it, should be disambig instead of redirect to single person), and then there's the issue over the use of subsequent names which nobody else shares (EH as above), which are unique to a person but someone says 'nobody would ever type it' therefore it's somehow disruptive? That, despite my having made a case for forenames being good disambiguation and giving a reference.

    I would appreciate it if people would actually discuss these issues and clarify what I'm to understand: I have not been ignoring the objections, however I am I supposed to understand that I should back down from discussing an important issue? I do have some level of understanding of the issue (I have highlighted 2 of the objections, which I have understood). Before I agree to change my behaviour: I want to make sure I am not overlooking any other issues. I still want to discuss them, but this concept of 'implausibility' is something which I think needs expansion. Where do these views get heard? I am fine with agreeing to avoid doing them, but I think if editing is this restricted then Wikipedia policy should reflect it.

    In the very least, Wikipedia policy currently does NOT reflect on not being able to redirect name fragments. Another editor agreed (and was ignored): redirects are cheap. There aren't any other Elton Herculeses. Elen completed ignored the URL given in her reply. Jeni made no reply at all, simply mirroring the 'implausible' which people are tagging: replies like that are utterly useless to informing editors. Xanthoxyl had already targeted these before and made an inapt comparison: there are other Martin Luthers, there aren't any other known Elton Herculeses, therefore the comparison was misleading and not an argument at all. I do think the editors have a point about researching family names: I should look more into last names and stuff like 'Sir John' as she's suggested, that's something I'll try to make an effort on in the future.

    I sort of get into a bit of a vibe when I look up theoretical disambiguations that even with something obvious like Sir John (John's a common english name) I didn't even think to look for others. I believe I ran through the knights of the round table and didn't remember any Johns so I thought it would be fine (editing on a low sleep can create illogical leaps like that). So: if allowed to edit I will try to edit in a clearer state of mind where I am more likely to notice mistakes like that, and spend some more time concentrating on redirects to consider whether or not (via using the search function) a disambiguation would be more appropriate to create.

    That said: I can't claim that disambiguation pages will be perfect from the start. Not every person in the world is easily found via the search. However, getting one started with the first page or two of information is good, right? Then people can add other Sir Johns (or what not) as they learn of them. In some cases articles about people are created after disambugiation pages for their family name so ongoing maintenance of disambigs is inevitable. Tyciol (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong

    From WP:DISAMBIG "Preparation: Before constructing a new disambiguation page, determine a specific topic name for all existing pages, and the name for the disambiguation page. Move any page with a conflicting title (i.e., the same exact title) to its more specific name. Use the What links here list for the moved page to update pages that link to that page." Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are excellent guidelines for disambig pages, it's also the first time anybody's brought something like that up. I can't remember if I read it, I think I did but probably lost track of the importance of doing that. People do need reminders of guidelines. I know from the many disambigs I've looked at (and needed to add to, because they're not extensive enough) that people don't thoroughly follow these guidelines when creating them. This is why they receive large amounts of subsequent work over time by other users: we fill in for each other's gaps in knowledge or research ability. So what am I 'wrong' about here? I'm not saying I'm a perfect disambiguator, just that like many others, I'm trying to do my part to get them started at least (so that others more competant can assist in perfecting it) and to help improve ones that exist. Since when is imperfect editing wrong? I'm learning (or relearning in some cases) a lot from this experience so I think if I'm unblocked I'd do some quality work. At the moment I'm looking through Ryulong's list and picking out redlinks. I can see he has started paying more attention in which he attacks because in some cases character names are left alone whereas family names are removed. Those family names are a great list of potential disambiguation pages in which I can spend some thorough time on each one using search to find people with that name. I have learned that I shouldn't just settle for a redirect in cases like names. Even for names which look strange to me and I think nobody else has just because there's no redirect for it yet, I shouldn't make the assumption. So, I will disambiguate for any other articles which have that name in the title (or which are the person's real name or otherwise known as). Tyciol (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, re Elton Hercules, the URL of that page is Elton Hercules (né Reginald Kenneth Dwight) JOHN.aspx ie his full current name plus his birth name. You don't seem to have realised that it is not referring to him as "Elton Hercules". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Look beyond just the URL: on the actual page, Elton Hercules is definitely listed alone. John is on a completely different area, it's not listed consequentially. Making Elton Hercules and Reginald Kenneth Dwight makes more sense than making Elton Hercules (né Reginald Kenneth Dwight). Tyciol (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway

    I got a bit of a tendency to ramble, so I'll be more concise: I would like to be unblocked so I can go back and correct some mistakes. Basically, I went through Ryu's list and found the red links. I don't intend to create all of them: rather, I'm going to try and figure out which are plausibly useful (such as creating disambiguation pages through the use of the search engine for family names that could refer to multiple people) and put some work into doing some edits of higher quality. As for the rest: I'll maintain it and section it into the various problem areas which have been identified (implausible redirects based on portmanteaus, the omission of periods, some of which I think are strongly likely and others which I admit, do not seem as likely at second glance). One thing I am wondering: to get a fresh start and put this behind me and make it easier for people to follow new work, would it be possible to start a second account? I'm not interested in evading a ban or sock-puppeting, but rather as per WP:MULTIPLE listing the association on both because I have a good reason of wanting to turn over a new leaf and make edits of lower quantity and higher quality. This has built up bad blood and I'm wondering if I could have a new start with User:Ty or something like that. This would minimize the difficulty of people who want to monitor new edits for quality and stuff. Tyciol (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the record show that [2], the online Debretts entry for Elton John, has a section marked Forename, in which the words Elton Hercules (né Reginald Kenneth Dwight) appear, and a section marked Surname, in which, not surprisingly, the word John appears. Right below the section marked surname, is a section marked Style. For the benefit of Tyciol, I can advise that 'style' in this context means 'the proper way to address this person'. In this section marked Style, it says Sir Elton John, CBE indicating that when referring to this person in polite company, this is how it is done.
    Tyciol, just because in Europe and the US we customarily have forms that display all the user's forenames in one field, and the user's surname in another field, does not in any way indicate that there is any kind of custom of habitually referring to persons by all of their forenames without a surname. As you have been repeatedly told, the custom is to refer to the person by the forename that they habitually use, plus their surname. Where a person has received a knighthood in the UK, the custom is to refer to them by the Debretts style. Debretts verify with the person their choice of habitual forename, to ensure that their entry is correct. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument has never been that EH is the proper custom in which to refer to him, just that it's a possibility and should be disambiguated since there's nobody else who'd be called EH. Your analysis would be perfectly correct were I to call him this in the article's text or something, but there is zero harm in redirecting what might show up on a form (or a partial reference) to it. For example, if you saw 'Elton' in a screencap or something, you'd have no idea which Elton, but if there was Elton Hercules, or you saw that on a list of forenames, it would head there. I would honestly not call Elton "Elton Hercules" unless I was trying to get a rise out of him (it might be funny, he's got a song named Hercules) but we don't just redirect terms which are common reference, but also about plausible partial matches, which include errors. There's a predominant focus on typo errors but I think we should also acknowledge those of ommission. Tyciol (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What did you expect?

    In your own words, from a deleted edit at Talk:Elton Hercules:

    Apparently recreating this redirect for the third time is 'disruptive' and I've been threatened with blocking for it. But after being directed to a page about it, I am going to find the courage to risk that anyway, because this is important.

    Clearly you knew these redirects were considered disruptive, clearly you knew you were likely to be blocked if you continued making them. You did continue, and you were blocked... now you act surprised? I don't understand. What exactly did you think was going to happen, here? That repeating problem behavior would suddenly make others more amenable? Why not use a more appropriate forum, like Wikipedia:Deletion review? Why not employ dispute resolution to build consensus for your position? It's not so much what you're doing, but how you go about it that led to a block here, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dang I wish I could view that (admin only) but yeah I do recall writing that. One person told me that it was disruptive, that doesn't indicate that it actually is disruptive to the Wikipedia project. For example: I consider the unnecessary tagging and spurious deletion and recreation of my valid redirects to be disruptive, and have said so, but that doesn't mean they are disruptive PERIOD just because I happen to think so.
    My violation of that warning was done because I honestly didn't think I would be blocked, because I was making a point: I wanted discussion of the redirect. I didn't know any way else to get it discussed. For future reference: am I even allowed to post something on RfD if it is not a redirect that's in existance? I guess I should have tried that instead, but I wasn't sure if my RFD would get deleted in that case. The thing is this: the RFD guidelines say that when you put something up for RFD that you need to put the template for it on the redirect in question, so I couldn't very well do that unless there was a page to put it on, right?
    These other options are good, I should have done that. Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking about them. I am not as familiar as others with the intricacies of dealing with stuff like this. Also, I was a bit emotional, and I don't recall anyone suggesting I employ these options. Ryulong was courteous in notifying me about the incident board, which I appreciate, but when I was disputing the deletions it was not suggested I take it to deletion review. DR is something I associate with the deletion of article pages so it didn't occur to me to employ it for use in the discussion of deleted redirects. I had it in my mind that I should only discuss redirects on RfD, I was worried about creating drama by complaining elsewhere on the project.
    I'll spend some time to read into WP:DR and WP:DRV as you've suggested. If I am unblocked then I should be more informed about these methods so that I can use them along with WP:RFD to solve disputes outside of article space. Unfortunately when people are ignorant of the proper outside routes to take (and disputes are sometimes carried on in edit summaries or article's talk pages, even redirects' talk pages) they're compelled to take the only means of fostering discussion they see available. Tyciol (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock appeal 2

    Okay I'll do this in a new section.

    This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

    Tyciol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

    Request reason:

    Some good reasons were explained to me on alternate ways besides recreating redirects for RFD discussion (such as deletion review). The 'unjustified' was more in response to the reasons posted for the block. Basically: making a lot of edits is not justification, but the objections to my creation of redirects in lieu of spending time on disambig was justified, so I would like to continue editing and this time be more thorough in using search first, especially for the last names of real people which are likely to have matches. As for partial names, I will avoid making those unless someone is clearly referred to as that, and continue discussing that in policy talk pages and attempt to form some consensus to confront objectors with, rather than making it a namespace issue. Basically changing from not necessary to no longer necessary as I do understand what's being asked, I just wanted clarification on the specific points of the ban because I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something (vague ban description). I should not: disambig family names instead of red, don't red partials, don't red portmanteaus, don't direct actors to pages unless their name is confirmed not to show up anywhere else on wiki (and even then avoid circulars by removing original link), to not put year categories on talk pages, to not continue incident report discussions after archived (I guess start new one instead), and to not indent OP's replies on talk pages and allow the back'n forth thing. I would like to post Mark-swoggle for deletion review though, it doesn't fit any of these already had 3 editors confirm this and add it to the page.

    Decline reason:

    Still waiting for you to give a proper response to User:Dougweller's comment above. Extremely long responses give me the impression that you don't really intend to respond. You should be aware that you are running out of chances, if you don't have the intention to give a real answer soon. Your talk page may be locked due to the lack of any sincere effort to comply with our policies. Your redirects seemed nonsensical to many people, and you don't seem to realize that. If you would promise to stop creating redirects, you might be unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

    What sort of response would be proper? I thought this second one was. I identified as many objections as I could remember. I don't even know which the mod agrees with and which he disagrees with. How does writing a long response mean I don't intend to respond? I am being sincere, I'm sorry you don't recognize that.

    I am already aware the redirects seem nonsensical (I do realize that, despite what you say) but many I have made do NOT seem nonsensical to mods who have saved them, do you want me to post a list?. I am fine promising to stop making them for a period of time, like the one week I was initially banned for, for example. If you would suggest a period of time, that's cool, but I won't leave it open-ended as that implies forever.

    I don't think it's fair to ban me from forever making them when I do make good ones and understand what I did wrong in the bad ones. If I am making these unblock appeals too rapidly then I'll slow down, I'm totally fine just talking to the people so far until I come into an udnerstanding, it's just I'm not sure whether or not people read replies here since it doesn't pop up. Tyciol (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyciol, you've done a lot of good things for Wikipedia, and it would be a shame to see you disappear whether it be due to a block or just your own frustration. Since I'm not entirely clear on what happened with the redirects myself, I won't mention it, but why not just stop creating all redirects, even good ones, for the time being, and return to Wikipedia as a content editor? You can then talk over what problems we have with redirects as a user in good standing rather than being confined to this talkpage. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's totally fine with me, I already said above I'd be fine with temporarily stopping creating them. I just don't want to make a promise I'll be held to forever, because I do want an opportunity to again. Basically: who would I get permission from to start again? After all, I couldn't suddenly start again if I feared a ban even for an indisputable one. Anyway I contacted ArbCom so hopefully they can provide answers to stuff like that. I really just want what's disrupted succinctly clarified here so that I can agree to do it in the correct wording, because my attempt to guess at what's wrong seems to be missing something. Tyciol (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RVD

    For example: something I want to do now but can't which I think would be decent. Before I might have just redirected Szatkowski to Rob Van Dam. But even though it looks a rare name and I'd figure he's the only notable one with it, I use search and see besides him there's also a Henry, Henryk, Zygmunt, Charmayne, Deryck, Stanislaw, etc. so I would begin a disambiguation page for Szatkowski with a reasonable number of notable people found via search. This is what I have learned from Ryulong (and the same for first names). Doing this for a while is something I could do even while being restricted from redirects to show good intent here. As for a valid redirect, I think RvD to Ryan vs. Dorkman makes sense. As for a valid hatnote, putting one on RVD for RvD and also RV-D may be useful. Thoughts? Tyciol (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyciol, I want you to understand what the problem is, so you can be unblocked. I really do. But you are still not getting it. The purpose of a dab page is to differentiate between a set of Wikipedia articles that would all have the same title were it not for the need to disambiguate them (eg mercury the planet and mercury the chemical). Dab pages for people are only necessary where they have almost identical names, eg Philip Barker. WP:DAB specifically says:
    A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. For example, Baltimore Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation) because it is not called "Zoo". Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi".
    It follows that not only was there is no need for a dab page for Szatkowski, Sir John, Sir Paul, or the majority of dab pages you created - whether or not they eventually were kept - in a lot of cases what you want to do actually violates Wikipedia policy. You've done nothing yet to convince people that you understand this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting Baltimore Zoo under the zoo disambig isn't an edit I can imagine myself making. What sort of edit is comparable to that? First off, you don't need a disambig because Zoo#Modern era has a link to List of zoos, so it actually gets a main listing, or a link from a page linked on the main anyway. The Baltimore Zoo is actually called 'the zoo' since people always call the nearest zoo 'the zoo' but since there are countless numbers of zoos, they were moved to a 'list of' page. If there were not so many zoos, they would have been included on a disambig. Lists are created when disambiguation and stuff would get cluttered. It's like the next step after how disambigs get divided into categores, or how 'people named z' category gets moved to a 'z (surname)'. I am still not sure I see what the trouble is with disambiguating Szatkowskis, or with creating a list of knights with a given name. I can see how the need for them may not be as great as we have need for other things, but does working on things of lesser need violate policy? If someone says 'Szatkowski' that's certainly a risk of confusion since there are many people with the name, just like we disambiguate for all sorts of first and last names. Just look at Tom (name) for example, there's a list of people with the name, how's that different? Tyciol (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For your second suggestion, you have got it the other wrong way round. There are actually four uses of RVD in an acronym which have articles in Wikipedia
    Three or more uses requires a disambiguation page if you feel that disambiguation is required (personally I don't as these are only redirected acronyms). Your suggestion of using the same hatnote on more than one article was wrong. Sorry. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting acronyms is pretty important, especially when things are regularly referred to by them. It'd be different were it unusual acronyms, but I didn't coin any of these myself, they're all mentioned on the article. In this case, we have 2 notable science terms and 2 notable fictional entertainment ones. I certainly did miss one, so if the page had been created, you could have added that in, right? Transformer being the key noun it'd be odd for someone to omit that last T though, moreso than the 3 preceding words which are adjectives and more likely to be accidentally dropped in common description, but acronyms can certainly lose letters easily. Tyciol (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyciol, what is your problem? What part of "a disambiguation page is not a search index" are you not understanding? If you redirect Szatkowski to a dab, YOU PREVENT PEOPLE SEARCHING FOR IT. That means you have to get EVERY instance of Szatkowski into the dab, otherwise PEOPLE WON'T BE ABLE TO SEARCH FOR IT. That is why you only use dabs where there is SERIOUS LIKELIHOOD of confusion. Not likelihood in your confused brain. Likelihood in the real world. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that you don't think a page at Szatkowski listing people named Szatkowski would be a good idea? or are you just referring to his earlier idea of redirecting Szatkowski to RvD? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Soap I think she's referring to having a dab at the page, not redirecting it to Rob's page, which I dismissed. That's an error I've learned from (though I still don't think it warrants blocking, nor deletion). The whole 'impedes search' seems like an outdated argument to me which I'd like to see go, but I'll have to do that through the proper channels, as for now I understand Ryu's suggestion of creating disambigs. But now I'm being told that even disambigs are bad and still enter the evil 'search index' route. I take that to mean not reference every page which contains a word (which is what the search engine returns, making it difficult for users to navigate) but only listing on disambig articles primarily about the word in question. Tyciol (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen, I'm talking about creating a dab at Szatkowski, not redirecting it to a dab. Furthermore, despite the allcaps, no: having a page with a word does not make it impossible for people to click the search button and use the search engine. We have disambiguations for all sorts of names, so it's pretty much policy that there's a likelyhood of confusing people with the same last name. I would appreciate avoiding personal attacks as well: my brain's not confused. There is clearly no criteria being measured here for 'seriousness' or 'likelyhood' when comparing various last names' use as disambiguation. Picking a random name: Bradshaw. A list of notable people with that surname, so why Bradshow and not Szatkowski? Show me the numbers here for 'likelyhood', or is this just weighing opinions and blocking those who think something's more likely? Tyciol (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyciol, I do apologise. I have indeed confused matters - my fault entirely: I should refrain from posting unless I can give it my full attention. I have struck the last comment and will I think leave the answer to your question below to those who make better explanations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks but I don't think you're as confused as you think you are, because I think it's actually just the use of words used to express. For example, a disambig does prevent a search coming up when someone types something and presses enter, because the default is to choose 'Go' instead of 'Search' when pressing enter and Search only happens if there is no result from 'Go'. That's the criticism I think from Ryulong and I think some others supported that. It is a valid one, but it seems minor since people could always resort to clicking search anyway if at first the article they got from typing 'go' didn't work out. I figure the purpose of disambigs and go is to display results people think people may choose. We can remove very obscure disambigs, and also work heavily to expand limited disambigs in a fell swoop rather than rely on users to improve it bit by bit over time on an as-needed Samaratin basis. Feel free to post as much as you like, I react in perhaps an overly scrutinizing way when I feel on the defensive. Tyciol (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for being so gracious about it. I am aware (my family tell me on a regular basis) that I have an overly hectoring manner, and typed text makes it even worse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

    The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
    This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock appeal 3

    I eventually plan to make a third appeal, but am seeking advice from the dispute resolution committee on how to word it, so I will not post the tag here yet for fear of talk page locking. This is a placeholder for the moment, if anyone has any advice on what issues I did not cover in the original block, that would be helpful. Summarizing this is useful as it is not clearly and shortly stated the issues. Tyciol (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I got your email, but I don't think I have anything useful to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: Barack Hussein

    I don't check my Wikipedia much, and I don't quite recall making the redirect to Barack Obama. Probably came in the stage of my life when I was against Obama, then I kind of liked him, and now he's just straight disappointing. I really get irritated when people tag my work for speedy deletion, so please try to refrain from tagging the page. No one else has brought it up to an issue, and I don't think anyone cares ever since the election is over.

    I'm pretty sure I've heard the name "Barack Hussein" used on Fox News here and there, but I'm more of a BBC guy even though I live in the United States. Nice talking with you. Chinese3126 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyciol&oldid=308566192"