User talk:Everyking

Questions, comments, thoughts, complaints? (last blanked 9/4/07)

Major discrepancy in Congolese election article

See Template talk:Republic of the Congo parliamentary election, 2007, please. —Nightstallion 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leone

Yeah, I find that rather incredible myself... —Nightstallion 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Zimbabwe

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 edits

Thanks for contributing 100,000 edits. That's amazing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I'd happened to check to see how much longer it would tak to run on an account with more edits. (Still instant!) ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know edits aren't power or anything like that, but 100,000 is simply amazing; you're one of a handful of editors with that many. Congratulations, and thank you for your amazing work Everyking. :) I hope you continue it. Acalamari 22:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

Everyone makes them, and I made two in that situation. All I saw was a page or two of edits solely to user talk pages, and I decided on that. I apologized immediately after that, and I know that I should triple-check in these situations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I know where you were alerted to this mess. It's hard to have to wade through Awbrey's posts, isn't it?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I stand by the fact that if you only contribute to the user space, that you shouldn't be allowed to continue editting Wikipedia. The community portion of this website is important, but the encyclopedia takes precedence over community building.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana

Hi -- I saw your participation in the huge, frustrating discussion about Hannah Montana episodes. I've been looking through the TV episode conversations, and I'm surprised that people rarely bring up the idea of moving the episode guides to Wikia. I know that's not exactly an answer to the larger exclusionist/inclusionist debate on Wikipedia, but it's something that could at least make people feel happier and calmer about it. Rather than see their work get deleted and redirected, the people who created those pages could move them to their own Hannah Montana site.

I would be happy to help people set up the site, if you think it's appropriate to offer that. I've created a bunch of TV show wikis on Wikia, and it's really easy to do. Please let me know what you think; it's obvious that you have a good handle on these issues, and I'm curious about your opinion. -- Danny (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My cleanups

I'm not sure what you mean "changing the titles".

As for the commas, you're the first person to complain about them (and I've been adding them for a long time now). I add them to improve the accessibility of the citations — having no non-link characters between hyperlinks can cause problems for screenreaders. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this point. Sorry. — OwenBlacker 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely, on both points. Both the commas and replacing capitalised text with mixed-case text are accessibility issues and using plain text between adjacent links is a WAI guideline, whereas using mixed case makes text much easier to read for people with astigmatisms (including myself).

With regard to "changing" the titles, I'm doing no such thing. Changing the case of the title is not the same as changing the title itself and makes no difference other than making it more readable. Indeed, our policy on citations (WP:CITE) does not insist that case be maintained. In fact, the implication I draw from MOS:TM is that what I am doing is correct, whereas leaving the titles in all-caps is incorrect.

So I'm sorry, but I sha'n't stop doing either. I'm trying to make the Wikipedia a more accessible place (indeed we have a Wikipedia policy to do so; see WP:WAI, as well as a WikiProject WP:USE), so I'm afraid I belive you're wrong and will continue to fix these problems as I have been doing. — OwenBlacker 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest we get some form of arbitration involved. Edit wars aren't helpful and are a waste of both of our time — we're both merely trying to create a better Wikipedia, after all, we just disagree on what is "better".

I'll list the issue on WP:RFC/STYLE so we can get some kind of solution out of it. We each feel the other is wrong and — particularly given the edits in question are ones done automatically — it makes sense to resolve this dispute "properly". I'll copy this whole conversation thread to User:OwenBlacker/Usability, so it's easier for people to comment on it.

In a separate note, though, could you please try to avoid reverting {{fr icon}} back to {{fr}} (and similarly with other language links), as I'm trying to disambiguate the two templates, as is the case with {{de}} and {{de icon}}.

Let's see if we can find some sort of resolution to this disagreement; I'm sure neither of us is intrinsically unreasonable :o) — OwenBlacker 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to defer to the consensus on the two contentious issues here. Don'worry, I'd assumed you were only reverting the other changes ({{fr}} → {{fr icon}} and date wikification as per MOS:DATE, for example) simply because it's so much easier to revert a whole edit than to go through it and remove only the contentious parts. I'd assumed there was no malice involved in that :o)

Thanks again for engaging in the dialogue on the RFC, though; I much prefer to avoid edit wars where possible, if only because they're a waste of everyone's time, innit. — OwenBlacker 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yeah, if I'm making other changes to the article anyways, as per WP:CITE — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE doesn't specify using quotes where the article is a link. Personally I think it's ugly to have quotes as well, but I've been trying not to remove them, just to keep you happy. Please try to assume good faith and accept that it was a mistake on my part where I removed them without thinking about it. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Mayer

Regarding your discussion with Lar:

The deletion log for a page is shown above the edit box when you click a redlink to it. It can also be viewed at Special:Log/delete by entering the title of the page. In this case, Deborah Mayer was deleted by FloNight with the summary "Speedy delete as an article created by a banned user; email me for details". Incidentally, the page was on AfD at the time it was speedied, here's the nomination page. A link to that page is also automatically included in the text shown when you click the redlink above.

The reasoning behind reverting and/or deleting edits made by banned users is that those edits should not have been made in the first place. If we'd caught the sockpuppet earlier, they would've been blocked and wouldn't have been able to create the page in the first place. Your argument about the content being independent of the creator is only partially true: while facts and ideas don't dependent of the person expressing them, the expression itself certainly does. The way an article is written, including the choice of what to include and how to present it, always and inevitably reflects the personality, biases and idiosyncracies of the author(s). In some ways, the situation parallels that of copyright: ideas are not copyrightable, their expression is. The process of reducing an article to its core of ideas and facts, and re-expressing those in a manner completely independent from the original, has a name: it's called rewriting from scratch.

I've reviewed the article in question, as it was at the time of deletion, and agree with the comments given in the AfD stating that it would, indeed, require a retitling and a rewrite from the ground up to comply with WP:BLP1E. Such a rewrite would also, incidentally, serve to clean the article of the subtle bias and focus issues that are characteristic of Amorrow's (better) contributions. Per your discussion with Lar, I'm not comfortable with providing you the full text of the original article (although I wouldn't mind if someone else does). However, I'm willing to give you the part of it required for such a ground-up rewrite: namely, the references. They are:

Per WP:BLP1E, I'd strongly advise against recreating the article at the former title (especially as Google seems to indicate that she may not be the most notable person of that name). In fact, the subject might be better discussed in a general article about reactions to anti-war sentiments expressed in the U.S. during the Iraq War, though I'm not sure whether any such article currently exists. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. You also expressed concerns about my article writing experience, while it is true that I haven't written much, I don't see why article writing is a prerequisite to being an administrator. The administrator tools are more for cleaning up (thus the term "mop") rather than writing other articles. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for a week, since you don't seem to understand more subtle hints. While dissent is normally welcome, this particular case is not open to debate. You will cooperate in this matter, or you will find yourself unable to participate in the project. Kirill 05:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to ANI; I will be happy to observe any consensus there. I will also be content to serve out my block if there is consensus for it. You do not have consensus right now, however, so I request that you unblock me. I will not restore the talk page comment until/unless consensus backs me up on that. Everyking 05:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the matter to AN/I at WP:AN/I#Everyking blocked, and noted that I am open to other admins changing the block. Perhaps someone will take me up on that.

In the meantime, however, you will remain blocked under my own discretion; given the gross impropriety of your behavior, I consider it a rather appropriate measure. Kirill 05:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that policy, which I quoted on Lar's talk page, fully backs me up on the inclusion of the disputed comment. The edit I was typing at the time I got blocked was a response to Lar saying that we should seek a wider consensus for the meaning of that portion of the policy. I also don't feel you've fairly represented me on ANI, because I have already agreed to cooperate 100%, and I will not restore the comment unless a consensus of editors agrees with my interpretation of the policy. Everyking 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what I have in mind. I need your agreement not to restore the edits at all. As I said, this particular matter is not open to debate. Kirill 05:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't agree to refrain from restoring the comment if there is consensus that it is acceptable for me to have that comment here. That would be very unreasonable. Consensus should trump what either of us say. However, if you believe that this is a special case because you allege this is Amorrow, I will respect a consensus that the specific policy does not apply in this case due to his past behavior (which I find utterly reprehensible, although I have no idea if the person who left that comment was actually Amorrow or not). I will respect the consensus whatever it is, and I ask that you in turn respect that pledge by unblocking me. I was in the middle of doing content work, and I would like to participate in my ANI thread as well. Everyking 05:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. As I said on AN/I, I am open to another admin unblocking you, should they feel it appropriate. Personally, however, I have no intention of doing the block until I'm certain of your future cooperation in regards to this issue. Your actions do not exactly inspire confidence, unfortunately.

If you wish to make statements in your AN/I thread, of course, you can make them here, and I'll be happy to copy them over for you. Kirill 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which of my actions don't inspire confidence, and I'm sorry you feel that way about me. I think you could just sum up my pledge to respect consensus, my pledge not to restore the content prior to any such consensus developing, and my argument about what the policy says, and that would suffice. Everyking 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit confused: is your second sentence a continuation of your comment to me, or a summary of what you want mentioned on AN/I? It could be read both ways. Kirill 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I didn't realize that. It's a summary for ANI. Everyking 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully that's close to what you had in mind; if you have problems with my wording, please feel free to indicate a version closer to your intent. Kirill 06:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Given your promise above not to restore the comment in question without consensus, I've unblocked you so that you can continue to work on articles, subject to the condition that you not restore the reverted comment until and unless clear consensus for permitting it emerges on AN/I.

Request handled by: Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the comment remains in your talk page history, so it's not like you've actually lost any information due to the revert. You're not going to be able to hold any meaningful discussion with Amorrow (and yes, it was him, as confirmed by CheckUser) here, since he's banned and not supposed to be editing — if you really want to talk to the guy, do it by e-mail. Given all that, are you sure you really want to restore that comment just so you can keep it on display here? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]