User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2008/03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
とある白い猫
A Certain White Cat

User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox

JA TR Commons Meta

Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my user talk page.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive, March 2008

your evidence[edit]

Re your addition of: [1]

Uh, what? -- Ned Scott 05:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I would like to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. While it would seem that we are hopelessly at odds about some issues, I'd like to limit that, and not have it bleed over to any time we interact on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Computer/Scepbot[edit]

If your bot uses the pywikipedia framework, you might want to change the following code in redirect.py:

                   # watch out for redirect loops
                   if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
                           or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
                       continue

to:

                   # watch out for redirect loops
                   if secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == secondRedir.sectionFreeTitle() \
                           or secondTargetPage.sectionFreeTitle() == redir.sectionFreeTitle():
                       content=secondTargetPage.get()
                       secondTargetPage.put("{{db-r1}}"+content, "Tagging for speedy deletion")

Then, your bot will tag them for deletion when it finds them. Will (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I would like to do that but I also want to keep the bot in sync with SVN. Also CSD#R4 would be better criteria me thinks (alas that was created today by me). I'll tell this on #pywikipediabot -- Cat chi? 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"<Filnik|away> White_Cat: tell Will that he has an old version of redirect.py and if he will send me a patch suitable for the new version I'll consider it (and apply if correct)"
So if you can do that, we all would benefit from this. :)
-- Cat chi? 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Newest as in SVN, yes? Will (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd wager $2000 thats what he meant. :) Of course if I am wrong I won't be paying. :P -- Cat chi? 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a place I can test it? Wikimedia projects cache the list, which makes it useless. Will (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know. You could test on a private wiki, perhaps wikia. -- Cat chi? 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying Wikiquote, by looping an already double-redirect, then running the script on it. I'm trying to find out where the error is being thrown, though... Will (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
And done, and patch generated. Will (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
SVN has been committed. Will (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Point[edit]

You accuse me of pointyness? Maybe I tried the talk page of multiple arbitrators and they failed to respond in a satisfactory manner? -- Cat chi? 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't know if you have or not, but the point stands. The page makes it clear that you should use the talk page. Just because your proposals haven't found any traction doesn't mean you should try to force them into use. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. For example if they gave me a single rational explanation why they are completely ignoring the evidence I provided - that would be a satisfactory response.
I will cease responding to you or anybody on this any more because I know people are waiting in a long queue seeking a mere excuse to block me over the most trivial error (this isn't an accusation directed at you, they know who they are). I will not give them the satisfaction. To put it mildly, I am very frustrated.
-- Cat chi? 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I understand you may be frustrated about your evidence not being seen, as I went over Krill's talk to see an example, but it seems to me that Krill at least has acknowledged it. Just because they don't accept it doesn't mean they're ignoring you. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well?[edit]

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you before, I've looked at the material you've presented, and do not believe that modifying the proposed decision will be in the best interests of the project. Neither, apparently, do any of my colleagues. Kirill 04:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be having difficulty communicating... Would you prefer IRC?
Would you find it in the spirit of the passed arbitration remedies if people carry out the edit behaviour they had on television-related articles (what this case handled) to video game related articles? That is what is happening to a degree due to the wording of the remedy with an emphasis on "television". Video game related articles are typically not television related. This is only one of the issues I feel arbcom failed to address.
Is meatpuppetary not an issue? Granted arbcom is passing the "Fait accompli" thing, yet again... I presented evidence of editors are acting as a group on hundreds of articles. Surely this is not the preferred way of editing per "Fait accompli"... So why can't arbcom pass a ruling to limit or discourage any more such behaviour?
There are 10 headers on the evidence I presented. All I ask is a rational explanation why none of it is not used on the /Proposed decisions? I never expected all of them to make it to /Proposed decisions.
-- Cat chi? 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The bulk of your evidence is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand. This case concerns the broad question of editorial conflict over the disposition of certain articles; if you have private conflicts with certain other editors involved in the matter, you should pursue the dispute resolution process in that specific regard, rather than expecting those issues to be handled as a side effect of an unrelated case.
The rest of it is no different, in essence, from that presented by the various other parties. We're already well aware that there are two groups of editors fighting over the issue here. The current remedies remain, in my opinion, the most appropriate method to deal with the editorial conflict at this juncture. If the conflict spreads or otherwise increases, we can deal with the matter then; but I see no need to try and predict where someone might try to take it in advance. Kirill 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it strange that arbitration committee is willingly overlooking problematic behaviour. Is the desire for me to file more arbitration cases? I can do that if you like. I already filed two arbitration cases on Davenbelle, I can file a third one no sweat. I can file a video game rfar as well, fyi it has already spread. Evidence to this end has been presented and that is not just by me. I can file an rfar over meatpuppetry issue. Is this what arbcom wants? More workload? -- Cat chi? 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

yardım[edit]

selamlar cat,

senden bir ricam olacak, ben benim vikide Şablon:Metakutu yu çalıştıramadım. Bu şablon Fransızların Modèle:Début des onglets [2] şablonu. #if fonksiyonu görünüyor, tablo oluşuyor ama yarım yamalak.Burda görüldüğü gibi

şunu belirtim Türkçe vikiden css ve js dosyalarını yükledim, ama benim serverda ekstsnsin dosyası boş bununla bi ilgisi var mı ve ya sürümle. Ne yapmam gerekiyor

PHP: 5.2.5 MySQL: 5.1.1 Mediawiki:1.11.1

tr:Kullanıcı:Sweetghost--81.213.165.83 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinin kurulumu bilmedigim bir konu size nasil yardimci olabilecegimi tam bilmiyorum. -- Cat chi? 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Well?[edit]

I want to clarify the following 3 sections before focusing on others. -- Cat chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

edit point a[edit]

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a lack of attention from the ArbCom White Cat. I personally had gone through all the evidence you submitted and i am still believing that i only could have accepted it if it were the basis of a separate case though i find it partially quite unconvincing (in most of its parts as it is presented now) as a proof of anything. However, i am still open to hear about any further or new solid evidence. There would probably be a few elements worth checking but my 'common sense' tells me it should be separated from this case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I'll 'walk' you through what I meant with my evidence. Its 2:45AM3:25AM and I have an intercontinental travel tomorrow so this will probably be unsatisfactory today. I will post something more detailed tomorrow.
The first issue I'd like you to consider is #Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick
Some history. Firstly please familiarize yourself with these usernames
Coolcat -> Cool Cat -> White Cat
  • I have changed my username twice to date
Davenbelle - Moby Dick - Diyarbakir.
  • Davenbelle and Moby Dick had made identical/similar edits and have been treated like the same person.
  • Moby Dick and Diyarbakir are checkuser confirmed to be the same person. Both have been banned indefinitely.
Stereotek - Karl Meier
  • Stereotek has changed his username to Karl Meier. I have not been in dispute with this person for the most part. I hardly ever hear from him.
Fadix
  • User has been banned by arbcom on the 'Armenia-Azerbaijan' arbitration case.
I have spent a good part of my wikipedia's various dispute resolution processes such as collecting evidence for arbcom. To date I have been involved with four arbitration cases of which two were episode/character related. As it appears, on all four of them I have been dealing with one person that got banned several times.
  1. First one was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek lasting between 24 July 2005 and 5 October 2005. If you take a glance at passed remedies you'll see "Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat" which diplomatically addressed the harassment issue. The issue did not settle with the closure of the case. It lasted till 7 December 2005 (two more months) as visible at /mentorship and /mentorship talk
  2. The peace and quiet was only temporary. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick particularly take a look at "Prior behavior by Davenbelle" and "Moby Dick has harassed other editors" Arbcom has again held a more diplomatic tone. This again did not end there. Moby Dick went to inactivity.
  3. I did not really have much peace and quiet. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir shows examples of the kind of nonsense I wasted my time with. Diyarbakir focused on Turkey and Kurd related articles in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. Finally Diyarbakir and Moby Dick was indefinately blocked by the community on Early May 2007 with the checkuser evidence. I genuinely thought my harassment days that started on spring 2005 have finaly reached an end.
  4. Now I know a Jack Merridew has seriously started editing wikipedia just a few days after Moby Dick's ban. Unlike Diyarbakir, Jack Merridew focuses on fiction related articles again in a manner which is the exact extreme opposite of my edits. He has removed nearly all of my contribution to Oh My Goddess! related articles. He went out of his way to participate in any related discussion in a manner only to remove content including discussions on templates.
  5. I am not sure how receptive the wikipedia community is on the matter of this notorious stalker in the light of this thread. Each year I file a new case and spend 3 months on thwarting Davenbelle's new account. Jack Merridew would be his 4th account.
Based on the evidence I provided, is there anything unconvincing on the identity of Jack Merridew? I am rather tired of filing case after another and request much much more severe remedies to get this guy (Davenbelle) off my tail. No one should be required to sacrifice 2-3 months per year on stalkers.
This is relevant to the case because it involves tv episode related articles and a disruptive party.
-- Cat chi? 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I get two things out of the above... You and your case and the E&C one. If you really believe in your evidence then you don't have to waste more than a few minutes of your time posting the above as a new RfA case unless you have to gather more evidence; which necessarily has to be really solid. Also, there's no CU findings for arbitrators' guidance. Again, the evidence as it seems now is unconvincing to me and concentrates more on you and your alleged wiki-stalkers. You may argue that the two cases are related and I would not disagree but as I see it in a whole I strongly believe they are partially if not minimally related because if you ask the majority of the involved parties they would tell you that they got a problem with an edit pattern and not with a stalker sock/meatpuppeter, etc...
If you decide to file a case and if your present evidence has a chance to be treated as a proof of any violation then obviously and simply the decision enforcement on the subject would override the original one. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider these:
  • "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior, they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (#Identity).
  • "CheckUser results show Moby Dick edits from IPs compatible with the Davenbelle's location. Edits show a common interest in Kurdish and Turkish issues." (#CheckUser and common interests Davenbelle, Moby Dick)
Now consider these:
  • CheckUser results show Jack Merridew edits from IPs compatible with the Davenbelle's location. An hence compatible with the location of Moby Dick.
  • Edits
    • Diyarbakir has edited until 10 April. He stopped editing on the 10th.
    • On 11 April Jack registered and started editing and has done so until 19 April. He stop editing on the 19th. Jack focused this entire contribution between 11 April and 19 April on various non-profit organizations operating in Bali.
    • Diyarbakir made edits on 23rd of April.
    • Diyarbakir was blocked in 26 April for being a sockpuppet.
    • On 2 May Moby Dick was also blocked indefinitely.
    • Jack Merridew resumed editing on 8 May, 6 days after Moby Dick's block. From 8 May to 25 June (nearly 2 months) he made 48 edits most focusing on Indonesia related articles. [3]
    • On July 2007 Jack Merridew made 881 edits almost entirely focusing (attacking) on fiction related articles as if someone switched off his interest to non-profit organizations in Indonesia. [4]
    • On 27 July 2007 Jack Merridew participated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek)‎. I started the articles in question. Davenbelle and Moby Dick has a history in participating in votes I have participated in the opposing corner. This was the 6th AfD Jack has participated with my count. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir has a few examples.
As you seem to agree the two cases are related to a degree. Jack Merridew of course did not ONLY stalk me but also edited other fiction related articles in a problematic way. I cannot however understand why arbitration committee is going to disregard users other related disruptive behavior. Arbcom is a dispute "resolution process" and the dispute concerns Episode and Character related articles. There exists an alleged sockpuppet harassing one of the editors editing episode and character related articles. By basic logic it is very related if you ask me. So long as the issue surrounding Jack Merridew is not addressed, the episode and character dispute will not be resolved. Arbcom isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy.
-- Cat chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Point one - You already state that ArbCom is a dispute "resolution process". The thing is the ArbCom hasn't seen any dispute resolution process followed by you to sort out the alleged stalking and sock/meatpuppetry. With no RfC and no CU request, the ArbCom cannot rely on just a user's analysis. It doesn't require an arbitrator to agree that the two cases are related for your evidence to be addressed. That's why, at the absence of CU, at least solid evidence is required. That is for the weight of the evidence.
The other point... This is not bureaucracy but common practice. Also, as a common practice and sense, cases are referred to on a historical and eventual basis. In other words, your case dates back to years ago and has evolved under different circumstances than those of episodes and characters case. Your case involved 2 or 3 users while this case involve many more users. Your case involves stalking and sockpuppetry according to you. The community sees the whole as two different things and i haven't seen any change regarding that. They just happened to interfer somewhere and the only existing relationship between them is you. The community may then refer to two different ArbCom desicions for convenience using referentials. Your case appears to be more complicated than the E&C since you believe it has taken a long time to be fixed. It does not mean that we cannot sort it out through the ArbCom. We are here for that reason but cases cannot take longer times. Your case can be addressed separately. We cannot keep the status quo for a huge number of articles because of a problem that can be separately resolved. The community cannot accept that White Cat.
The degree of relationship between the two cases is relative of course. So add to that the lack of solid evidence and a CU finding. This gives you two broken eggs. I have suggested how you can keep them for later on instead of losing them all now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have linked you to the checkuser material twice (once on /evidence and once here). For the the third time, please click here. That is a report by a checkuser. User:Moby Dick's IP is still indef blocked. So, Moby Dick by very nature of computer science and our blocking system has to change his IP to make edits. Under that assumption Moby and Jack will not have indentical IPs.
I will not engage in any forms of dispute resolution process - particularly something as dysfunctional and useless as an RfC. I kindly ask you to never again mention 'RfC' to me because I am to, put it mildy, sick and tired of engaging in the dispute resolution processes for the past THREE YEARS. I have used each step including RfC multiple times. I feel it is jawdroppingly obvious that this is him. What kind of evidence would you classify as "concrete" or "solid"? I may be able to provide it if I know what you are looking for. I do not know what exactly is you want me to provide. I do believe Moby Dick has a learning curve so he will not give me any obvious evidence like he accidentally did in the past. For example User:Diyarbakir pretended being a Kurd born in Diyarbakir. He added a category:Kurdistan to many articles strictly to bait me (per RFCU evidnece). One of his major mistakes was editing as Moby Dick in march which made checkuser a possibility.
-- Cat chi? 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what i meant by the above is that a "complicated long-time case that needs more digging cannot impede, even unintentionally, the smooth running of Wikipedia. Your case can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while giving the main case a chance to go sorted out on time without delays. There are many editors out there waiting for things getting to normal." As you see, you can still disregard my 'Point one'. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are getting at, but see my comment on part c. While things should run smoothly, rushing an arbcom case is more problematic. If the passed remedies are not effective in resolving the dispute more community/arbcom will be spent on the continuation cases. This happened with the first RfAr case on episode articles for example. So rushing it may not be smoothing the process. -- Cat chi? 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be probably right but we are talking about 'part a' here which can be better dealt with separately for referential and historical reasons plus convenience and Wikipedia standards and common practice while... -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. I am inclined to do as you ask and file a separate case simply for the convenience alone. I just am skeptical what good will it do (per section c). I guess what I am asking is assuming my assessment is right - that Jack Merridew and Davenbelle are the same person - what remedies can arbitration committee enact so that I do not deal with Davenbelle any more? Blocking him indefinitely doesn't appear like an effective measure. -- Cat chi? 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not asking White Cat and it is not only for convenience. I am explaining to you what is appropriate and reasonable and why. So let me explain it to you again that the answer to your last question can only be answered through a separate case if needed otherwise everyone is under the radar of the ArbCom and the people who help at the ArbEnforc. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I did not express myself well enough. I was inquiring on what arbcom can do as in what are the limits of the committee. Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user? I do not want to spend another 3 weeks on an arbitration case if arbcom lacks the authority to do anything. -- Cat chi? 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Can arbcom take any action beyond indef blocking this user?. Well, yes. It can be a ban and i am referring to any user who would exhaust the community patience, not necessarily this user because we still don't know. ArbCom can only indef block user accounts and its socks or meatpuppets after verifications of facts, a thing that also the Community can do without involving the ArbCom. We are not the police White Cat. The maximum the ArbCom can do is to ban someone. Now, before even indef blocking or banning anyone, we must analyze the evidence and to do so we need to hear it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And he can pick a new identity in less than a week. In best case scenario arbcom can ban this what I believe is an indef blocked user that is somehow still editing. You do see where I am getting at I hope... In other words I will have to put up with harassment unless I leave wikipedia and hide in a bunker assuming a fetal position. :P
I am fully aware that arbcom is not the police, particularly not the Indonesian police. I just am not convinced what arbcom can do to actually prevent this person Davenbelle from further harassment.
-- Cat chi? 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to hide in a bunker. But just don't shoot. There is RfAr out there and its doors are open. We will verify your allegations and decide. If we find out that what you say is right then the harasser will be banned. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I patiently waited, collected evidence and got Moby Dick banned. That was the product of 2 years of patience until 2 May 2007. I was almost completely alone during the entire time.
We are in March 5th so it has been about 10 months this blocked user continued editing despite the ban - assuming if I am right of course. I am very skeptical that arbcom can offer a real solution. :/
-- Cat chi? 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

edit point b[edit]

I am somewhat saddened with your statement that my evidence concentrates more on me and my alleged wiki-stalkers. That is not true or at least was not the intention.

#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry) demonstrates that at least these four users act as a group to dominate a particular discussion. Not just issues concerning me but on other incidents as well. There are numerous examples of such participation. Also if someone files a complaint against either one of them or if one of them files a complaint against someone standing in their way, other three are quick to come to assist. Consider the case here for example or look at the workshop of this rfar. Granted not all four show up all the time as it is more of a combination of three people than four. This is more visible with the evidence. This was not addressed at all.

The statement that there are two groups of users fighting each other is not right. The diplomatic tone on arbcom remedies imply as if the inclusionists and deletionists united in fronts. There are multiple groups of people writing articles on unrelated fictional topics and a single group of users trying to purge it in a systematic manner. There are other unrelated deletionists groups who operate more reasonably.

For example, I focus on various anime (mostly Oh My Goddess!) and Star Trek. I have a dispute with a group of users (TTN - Ned Scott - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - ?) on Oh My Goddess! and Star Trek related articles. If the same group purges or attempts to purge "Hannah Montana" (random pick) related articles, the same people will be in dispute with a separate group of people writing Hannah Montana related articles. Me and people writing "Hannah Montana" do not work together against the deletionist group while deletionist group works together against separate groups of editors who actually write articles.

They cannot yet meet the resistance they are faced by people editing more popular TV shows so they pick on the smaller ones: User talk:TTN/Archive 8#WP:FICT isn't working. In other words they dominate the episode/character related discussion. This is an "imposed consensus" by them. This isn't what real consensus supposed to be.

-- Cat chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it was not your intention White Cat. You are probably just disagreeing with Ned Scott and some others. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that all you have to say on this? The way you put it is very insensitive and infuriating. Is this the way we prefer our users to edit? Work in groups and dominate discussions? -- Cat chi? 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not my intention at all. We cannot stop anyone from having deletionist or inclusionist tendencies. Plus i don't agree with the assertion that they avoid popular TV shows because of resistance there. That's not a solid assumption. If there are no canvassing or any other poor behaviour habits, then all what I can understand is that you just disagree with each other. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You may disagree with it but in TTN's words:
When I talk about "they" I don't refer to any random deletionist but to this group of users.
Someone having over 750 common edits with another is clear indication of canvassing especially if the edit behavior is anything but coincidental and instead identical. Two RC patrollers editing the same article is one thing and two users backing each other on the blanking of hundereds of pages is another. On my evidence page on the issue (#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)) I show examples of these users collectively revert waring on multiple occasions. On Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode) or Out of Their Minds for example all four (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott) users have edited the article in a similar/identical manner.
If you divide the total distinct pages edited by both user X and TTN then divide it by the total number of distinct pages edited by X and then multiply it by 100 (percentage of the edits matching) you get the below values:
  • %26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited
  • %15.35 of edits by Eusebeus are to pages that TTN also edited
  • %4.42 of edits by Ned Scott are to pages that TTN also edited
This should be telling something?
-- Cat chi? 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already stated that this evidence is not solid. Even if we disregard that aspect, the numbers above appear to be normal since the same figures can be found within any group of users working on the same WikiProject or set of articles. That is an element that the mathematical model used above doesn't take into account.
Seriously White Cat, %4.42? By the way, Wandalstouring is inviting me to help him write a set of articles. If I had enough time I could have %4.42 of my edits similar to those of Wandalstouring. Is it a proof of anything?
I confirm to you officially that all the above mentioned users are unrelated to each other. They are not the same user. No evidence of canvassing trend. As for meatpuppetry, there's no evidence of an exhibit of recruitment or canvassing. And I am sure if there would be any in the future, you'll find many admins dealing with it on the spot.
Again, they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves. This is not an exception to this area you edit, it is a common fact around Wikipedia. What the ArbCom can do is to judge inadequate behavior. This is what we do.
Your quote re TTN...Now they only have any sort of "power" over the big series like Harry Potter due to numbers, but things like that will always go slowly due to numbers anyways. I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones.
TTN said and did many inappropriate things and he is not going to be restricted for no reason. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight so because Wandalstouring is asking you to help write a set of articles that is enough for you to completely disregard the evidence I provided? You are right that the numbers merely imply canvassing/meatpuppetary and they need to be accompanied by diffs showing evidence of canvassing which has been provided. I seriously doubt there any four users that you have voted in an identical manner on xfds (on articles all four of you have no edits) on multiple occasions.
Have you checked the "Extended Evidence (TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 60)" expandable evidence? These are 60 pages all four of the users have edited. I listed all of them for fairness and transparency of my evidence. Not every case of the 60 pages is valid. It is possible for four people to coincidentally edit same pages. For example all four of them editing each others talk page isn't exactly surprising. However all four of them editing Out of Their Minds in an identical manner isn't normal. Or consider True Colors (That's So Raven). These are just two examples of the many.
You said: "they share the same interests as you (editing these articles) but they only share their POV between themselves". Is that not the definition of canvassing or even stealth canvassing? Is the notification of a biased (campaigning against fiction related articles in general) and/or partisan (votestacking on xfds concerning topics of fiction) group of people in a secret (via email for example) manner not problematic in any way? Are you claiming that these people do not in any way communicate on/off wiki and yet coincidentally show up on hundereds of pages just hours to days after each other? These people collectively revert war and vote on hundereds of pages. Of which on all cases they collectively remove/blank/redirectify articles. They are not collectively writing articles at all. You want me to provide hundereds of diffs? If you check the actual articles they edit and the way they edit you can see that they are not mere coincidences. Canvassing and particularly stealth canvassing is not easy to document.
-- Cat chi? 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"They share their POV between themselves" is an analogy with your case White Cat. From their POV they may think that "You share your POV with users who agree with you." We are talking here about deletionist and inclusionist tendencies and I've already explained to you that We cannot stop anyone from having such tendencies unless it is disruptive. It is common to find different camps at different topics and it is not necessarily a bad thing. We only deal with behaviour and the Fait accompli refers to this point and one of the remedies deals with it; all parties remain instructed and warned. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of deletionist tendencies. This is four or more self-righteous people dominating/canvassing discussions and votes together. "Fait accompli" is common sense. It has been passed many times by arbcom. What is the sanction if a group of users violate it? Certainly the TTN group as violated that many times. -- Cat chi? 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We have the general sactions and editing restrictions passed as motions as explained below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

edit point c[edit]

The remedies on the case focus on Episode and Character articles on television. The original case was filed concerning all Episode and Character related articles weather they are related to television or not. There are many non-tv characters such as the ones on video games, comics and stories. As it stands the arbitration injunction has only served to shift the dispute from television episodes to video game related articles due to its focus on "television". So the intended resolution by the arbitration committee is already tested and is not working.

Wording should not restrict this case to television. That is the entire point of #Gaming the system such as the arbitration injuction.

It is very stressful and time consuming to file an arbitration case. So I want the current case to have few to no rough edges.

-- Cat chi? 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a good point though i see no relationship whatsoever to Jack Merridew and you so that it would require another case to be filed. After all, any motion can change that to cover a wider, probably infected, scope whenever it is necessary. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can't. This section 'c' is related to the general issue and not a spesific user. Every 3rd level (===) section of my /evidence has an indeppendent logic and rationale. I do not want to file an arbitration case on video game related articles. Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it? An arbitrator restricted this to 'television' not the people filing it. The dispute had never been restricted to television articles. So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television. -- Cat chi? 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can't.
Of course it can be done if it would be deemed necessary.
Just how many cases do you want or expect me to file so that arbcom will look into it?
White Cat, you haven't filed any case related to E&C yet.
So I cannot understand why remedies are restricted to television.
This is the locus of the dispute... The dispute centers on the existence of articles regarding individual episodes and characters from television series, and is part of a broader disagreement regarding the interpretation of notability guidelines with reference to fictional and popular culture topics and one of the proposed remedies is that all parties instructed and warned. Please read this carefully: They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Anyone can file a clarification request and if problems spread further and becomes an issue that the community could not solve then a motion to the present case can be easily passed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
An arbitration case is a very stressful, complicated and time consuming process. Filing an arbitration case is like suicide regardless how merited your case may be. For example it can very easily ruin an on going RfA and any future ones. I sincerely hope you understand what filing an arbitration case leads to for some users. I do not want to file cases for the sake of filing them. For example filing the RfAr on Davenbelle and etc was the greatest mistake I have made on wikipedia. I have been through hell ever since. So I am not very enthusiastic about bringing something in front of arbcom. I do not know what else I could have done back then, but the arbitration case did not help me at all. Neither did the second one given I am prompted to file a third one. I seriously doubt a 3rd arbitration case will do me any good given the overall dismissive-looking attitude of some arbitrators. I am telling you this in an empathic manner. It isn't like I care about a reputation (nor have one - well a very negative one). If Jack were indefinitely blocked today he would be back editing in a few days. In a month or less he would be back to the harassment campaign only he'd be just more discrete so the fourth case would be much harder for me to file. What can arbcom do? For all practice purposes? because if I am right blocking Davenbelle serves no purpose.
Reasonable people like me can understand what you are saying here in words without a second thought on it. When arbitration committee said "halt all activity" a number of users have already tried very hard to trick the system. They have to a degree succeeded. I hence feel arbitration committee should be more explicit in the remedy. Arbcom looking at something "unfavorably" may not be enough for an administer to take action against a user engaging in behavior sanctioned him from on "television" related articles. We have seen examples of this before on other complex cases.
-- Cat chi? 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about E&C here. I am talking about a motion if deemed necessary in the future, be it tomorrow or after years depending on the situation and the state of the disputes. You are talking about another arbitration case and you are talking about your prior cases. Again, we are dealing with "two eggs." -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the omelet-like egg metaphor - and you got me quite hungry actualy. Right E&C... So why can't we avoid explicitly restricting this to "television" related articles and define the scope as "fiction related articles" in general? This dispute at no point was restricted to "television" related articles. People have already edited non-television related yet fiction-related articles. I can list many examples even before this arbitration case started. -- Cat chi? 15:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
White Cat, you are experienced enough to understand why we have motions in Wikipedia arbitration process. Also, if you are an observer of the Arbitration process, at least recently, you will notice how smoothly we can amend prior decisions everythime it is deemed necessary (a recent infamous example). General sanctions can be added or lifted when necessary. However, the ArbCom role is not solely restricted to sanctionary measures and you are experienced enough to know that guidence is also part of its role. We have to maintain this balanced approach and manage it optimally. We still believe users' general attitudes and habits to be reformed. This is contrary to the rushing you referred to above. After all, you agree that rushing is not good. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, I just don't want a rehash of this dispute on say video game related articles. The first rfar on episodes and characters was quite disappointing. This one is somewhat reasonable and not entirely satisfactory to me as it stands. I am very concerned about the continuation of this disruptive behavior as I have been dealing with this issue for over a year now. It is quite tiring to deal with a dispute 24/7 for a year. -- Cat chi? 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you agree that the decision is "somewhat reasonable" then that's great.-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I also feel they are more than inadequate in resolving the dispute in question. -- Cat chi? 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Or if he gets a new account... Any user is free to continue edit pattern that TTN made. Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN but his edit pattern is shared by many others. This issue as it stands is not addressed at all. People should not go out and mass xfd or redirectify entire topics. They can initiate a general discussion involving the general community and not a deletionist group and perhaps reach to a compromise/consensus. This is not done. -- Cat chi? 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Or consider a slight topic change [5] [6]. These are dated 25 February, 8 days after Kirill posted to /Proposed decisions. Or 22 days after the 3 February temporary injunction. -- Cat chi? 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You say that Arbcom only singled out and sanctioned TTN and then you ask me to consider two slight topic changes by TTN?!
if TTN asks another user to nominate an article or series of article for deletion via email or even talk page he can effectively ride around the restrictions he got. Well, TTN would even make phone calls if he wants to but that is still just an assumption White Cat. Indeed, it is irrelevant because what is important is keeping order inside the house. We can't stop anyone from canvassing via emails but we can stop disruption at AfDs. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
He could even go to the neighbor if he is desperate enough... Thats no the point. I would like to see a general sanction against the way TTN edited. You know... something in the line of "don't go mass afd/redirectifiy every fiction related articles without prior consensus to do so" or "seek community-wide consensus before taking any kind of mass action".
Also note the articles in question were exempt from the arbitration injunction as they are video-game related. TTN could have legally redirectified any one of those. I am merely showing the shift that has already happened... Arbcom remedies are out of sync with whats currently happening.
-- Cat chi? 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Associação Académica de Coimbra[edit]

Associação Académica de Coimbra is a Portuguese multisports club with several teams which compete in many top sports leagues and championships of Portugal, ranging from rugby union to volleyball to athletics. As far as I known, sports teams names are never translated in English see Deportivo de La Coruña, Mladost sports teams, Djurgardens IF and Real Madrid. Please, restore the teams' names and redirects to the previous versions in Portuguese or simply to a shorter form of the Portuguese name like Academica Coimbra or so. Yodaki (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, why are you asking me this? -- Cat chi? 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's because of this [7] . Yodaki (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The job of the bot is to fix double redirects - a technical task. I take no part in the name of the article by doing so. If you look at page history you'll see that User:Philip Baird Shearer moved the page. You may want to ask him. -- Cat chi? 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

I'd say it's one of the nicest and most-polished I've seen so far! --SpockMonkey (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Cobden, Ontario[edit]

Hello, I'm a moderate user of wikipedia. My Opus for this site has to be the article I wrote on Cobden, Ontario. This is my home town and I did a lot of research into it's history and everything so that I could make a good article on it. I have received a lot of comments from people in my town about the article and a lot of them have told me they learned things that they didn't know before. Recently a user named Bearcat has merged a lot of stub articles into the article about their region. I'm not sure what the policy is on this. Most of the articles were about very unnotible places (mclarens settlement being the best example). But I'm a little unclear on why he seems to insist on merging cobden aswell. The article was over 10,000 words long. I know that there doesn't need to be articles on everything on earth but, and I realize I may be the minority on this, it seems like towns should have their own articles. I mean.... people may want information about them and it was hard for me to find it all. Now the information is all broken up and scattered across the whitewater region article.

Anyways, the reason I'm bothering you with this is because you seem like you would probably know a little more about wikipolicy than me and I saw you get involved before. I guess you could say I'm asking for your help and opinion. And my main question is this: Are towns not worthy, ever, of their own article?

Ok, thanx--Matt D (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden, Ontario? Reverted yet again. I will notify the administrators noticeboard now. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cobden, Ontario -- Cat chi? 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I see that things are getting a little heated. I certainly hope that this can get sorted out. I'm afraid to pop my head in as, being the main contributor to the article, I may seem to have an obvious bias.--Matt D (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Soru[edit]

Eğer Türk değilsen, neden ana dili gibi Türkçe konuşuyorsun? Özür dilerim, sadece Türk olduğum için böyle şeyler ilgimi çekiyor... Türkçem kötü ise kötülüğün sebebi Türkçe ana dilim olmadığı için - ben Londra'da doğdum ve şu anda orada yaşıyorum. Siz nerelisiniz? Onur (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Internette kisisel bilgi vermeme taraftariyim o yuzden malesef sorunuzu yanitsiz birakacagim. -- Cat chi? 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Tamam, o zaman, ben ona saygı duyuyorum. Ama gerçekten çok güzel Türkçen var :-). Onur (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yadim edebilecegim bir konu varsa cekinmeden sorabilirsiniz. -- Cat chi? 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

a PageRank boost for Wikia[edit]

You may be interested in this thread;

--Jack Merridew 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are unwelcome on my talk page. All future comments will be promptly ignored. -- Cat chi? 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

expatriate lifestyle[edit]

While you're free to ignore this, I though I'd drop you a link that might give you a bit of insight into the expat community on Bali;

  • The Yak — Schools for our kids.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Depiction of Jesus[edit]

That was an inappropriate edit. Selected galleries with informative captions should not be "moved" to Commons (where they probably came from in the first place), least of all without raising the matter first. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is common practice. This is why commons exists. It was not moved from commons because I created the commons page. I do not have to extensively discuss weather or not I can make edits. I'd find the suggestion of such a thing very disturbing. -- Cat chi? 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not common practice, and is a bad edit. Someone else very rightly reverted it. Selected galleries as part of articles are a legitimate part of articles, including FAs. I know you hate discussing your actions, but this was completely out of line. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not hate discussing my edits. I do not wish to discuss this edit. I am completely uninterested what happens to the article. Do as you please. What more do you wish me to say? -- Cat chi? 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fine. You may find this FA nomination, where the issue was discussed, worth reading to see why a shoot-on-sight attitude to galleries is not correct. You are probably aware the WP:Galleries was A) never accepted by the community and B) referred to stand-alone galleries, not those in articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to use this to illustrate the possible move of images from Mohamed picture depiction to commons as a compromise to settle the dispute. This whole thing demonstrated how naive I was to think such a thing. I suppose I got what I deserved. -- Cat chi? 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh well! Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot help to rate unrated WP:FA articles in their project tags?[edit]

FYI, [8] can you help with this? Cirt (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jack Merridew. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

question...[edit]

Was it your intention to have your robot "fix" double-redirects even when they are #redirect [[]] {{R from misspelling}} or #redirect [[]] {{R with possibilities}}? Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot fixes double redirects (redirects that link to redirects). Bot does this task in a mindless manner following data at Special:Doubleredirects. From what I can see that is exactly what the bot did. I do not completely understand your query. -- Cat chi? 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I got your reply.
Since you didn't find this note clear, I left my question here.
I don't think we have interacted before. FWIW, I prefer it for my correspondents refrain from pasting my comments back on my talk page. IMO, if my correspondents wants to respond on my talk page, rather than on their talk page, and they want to let future readers read my original query, they can just link to my edit, as I have done here. Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

zh.wikinews[edit]

Hi, until recently http://www.wikinews.org/ had only 6 wikis listed. I have boosted that number to 10 wikis adding pt, sv, ja and zh wikis to the circle. I second guessed "条目" to be the word for "articles" in Chinese. Is this correct? Also does the Chinese on the page display correctly? -- Cat chi? 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"条目" is the phase they used over at zh.wp for "articles", so yes. The (simplified chinese) characters display fine. Hope that helps. :) -- KTC (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration[edit]

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When I talk too little people don't understand, when I talk too much people don't pay attention. I seem to not comprehend the balance. I was wondering if you could trim it for me only leaving back what you feel is the most relevant. Is this possible? Thanks. -- Cat chi? 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Likelihood of a pass[edit]

Does the case has any chance of getting accepted? What do you think?

-- Cat chi? 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't predict White Cat. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Mathmaticaly speaking there are 15 arbitrators 1 inactive 4 voted oppose 2 votes support. So 15-1-4-2=8 arbitrators are left to vote. To have a net 4 support I need the support vote of 6 more (4 of them to negate the opposition) arbitrators and get no opposition. Feels like a lost cause. So I cannot go to arbcom. Processes like WP:SSP and WP:RFCU will not work on complex cases like this one if my past experience in them is any indication. Such cases are generally declined. I do not believe Sam Blacketer is aware of the realities of the ground with his statement on the RFAR case. If I had "divisive administrative actions" why the heck would I even waste time filing a case? What would be your recommendation from here on? -- Cat chi? 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If the case is rejected then it is not the end of the world for you as an editor. Administrators have been empowered, through most of the recently closed cases and I am sure if X harasses Y, Y edit warred tediously, X attacks personally Y, etc they would be there. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The following is meant to be constructive criticism. I would like to see something gets done about it. Eventualism suggests this problem will eventually explode if nothing gets done about it. I had been able to identify such time bombs in a timely manner before so I think I have a rational logic below. I am just pointing out my observation based on my recent experience and hope some or all of these issues are fixed. I am not trying to insult anyone or anything. Merely pointing out things on how it looks on my end.
I think Arbcom is becoming less of a dispute resolution process and more of a bureaucratic and incompetent body that exists only to glance at content disputes. And even then, in such disputes arbcom's rulings typically fails to resolve anything, just mere requotations of our policies and common sense which people do not follow before, during and after the arbitraton case. We have seen this in Episodes and characters 1 RFAR. Arbcom will almost never touch user disputes. Arbcom is meant to look at those not content related issues.
The slow speed of how arbcom operates when matter concerns a user dispute is also an issue of interest. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories gets accepted just two days after it was filed on 17 March despite being a content related dispute. On the other hand my case has been dangling since 13 March or in other words 8 days ago and looks like it will not get accepted. About a week ago arbcom was almost out of cases all new ones were being declined and existing ones were promptly closed just hours apart from each other (alas 01:02, 14 Mar, - 21:12, 13 Mar - 22:46, 12 Mar). I have never seen Template:ArbComOpenTasks this empty. I am really skeptical on how much attention every individual arbitrator gave to each of the cases. If the real issue is that arbcom is unable to handle the workload the number of arbtrators can be doubled.
Some arbitrators go out of their way to ignore me or at least give such an impression. Arbitrators like Kirill Lokshin or FloNight or FT2 will not respond to my inquiries on their talk page. FloNight won't respond to me on IRC for the past 2 months (or more). FT2 will almost always ignore anything I post to him on IRC. On very rare occasions FT2 did respond to me pointing out he was busy and he would look into the case in "a few days" but that "few days" had never come to date. A new arbitration case or matter seems to always have priority over me. Yet he is quick to respond to comments by anyone else it seems.
Whats more, Arbcom is taking the advice of a person that regularly trolls me on IRC (Sceptre). This is not exactly building my confidence towards arbcom and instead is obliterating any traces of such confidence that is left.
I believe I am not the only person that has lost faith in processes like dispute resolution and specifically arbcom. In any community where there is a lack of confidence in peaceful ways to resolve problems, people resort to violence in small manageable groups. I can give many real world examples but that would be a mere distraction. On an encyclopedia that translates as disruptive activity. We have seen many examples of mob editing not just in the issue of character and episode RfAr. I see the same issue on many other disputes. The reason arbcom is dealing with more and more disputes is because fewer and fewer people have confidence on the unbearable speed and uselessness of the dispute resolution processes with every passing day. This is destroying the project called wikipedia.
-- Cat chi? 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is fair criticism. However:
  • The emptiness of ArbComOpenTasks is relative. It can be a positive sign of a hard working ArbCom. Take it at face value.
  • I am not familiar with administering via IRC. I've only been there twice if I am correct.
  • A couple of arbitrators have been willing to look further into the matter. There are certainly many administrators out there who can help better (confirm or not the results of CU, block disrupters, etc...). If I were you, I'd concentrate on my work and if I 'do' believe that I am being harassed deliberately (attacked, reverted most of the time, etc...) I'd report it. Just don't report every single misunderstanding as a Wikipedia policy violation. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD[edit]

Congratulations! List of Oh My Goddess episodes was selected as a List of the Day for April. Let me know if you have a strong preference for a date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

25 August 2008 will be the 20th anniversary of the series. That would be my preferred date if this is possible. -- Cat chi? 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a LOTD for April. Only dates in APril are possible. I will assign a random date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If possible please not April 1. How about 23rd of April? :) -- Cat chi? 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Robot[edit]

Hello

Your robot on Persian Wikipedia makes Arabic edit summaries instead of Persian Ones. For example could you change this edit summary "(روبوت: تصليح تحويلة مزدوجة)" to this one "(ربات: بهبود صفحه‌های بازگردانی)".

Thanks

89.165.7.104 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

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

Yessir, I'm free. For an hour or so anyway. How can I help? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 20:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle. Thanks. I picked you randomly so you are an uninvolved 3rd party. -- Cat chi? 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll check it out when I get back (leaving the house for a while). Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery and Plastic surgery[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interwiki on wikisource:el[edit]

List[edit]

Discussion[edit]

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

I am holding back on interwiki linking on wikisource until all my bot flag requests on all my accounts on wikisource concludes. Also scanning an entire wiki is costly. If you could list the spesific articles I can deal with them individually. It would be more efficient. :) -- Cat chi? 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay so these are all translations from English right? What are each of these items? -- Cat chi? 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
These are mostly original texts in Ancient Greek that have been translated into other languages. The translations are in other Wikisources. For example, s:el:Κλειώ is the first part of the Histories (Herodotus) written by Herodotus and translated into English by George Rawlinson and into French by Pierre Henri Larcher. The transwikis point to these tranlations. A reader who has opened the English translation at s:History of Herodotus/Book 1 would find it convenient to find a transwiki link to the original Greek text.
Others are translations. For example, s:el:Ο Πλούτος μας is a translation of an original Russian text by Peter Kropotkin. Its English translation is s:The Conquest of Bread/Chapter I (the Russian original is not on WIkisource). You can easily find out what each of these items is by clicking on the English transwiki link.  Andreas  (T) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime I added interwiki links to the Greek texts of the Old Testament that point to the corresponding Hebrew texts. For example, s:el:Γένεσις now has a transwiki link pointing to s:he:בראשית ניקוד. Running interwiki.py on these pages will add interwiki links to Old Testament texts in many other languages. All the Greek old testament texts can be found in the category s:el:Category:Παλαιά Διαθήκη.  Andreas  (T) 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I ran the code. Please review wikisource:el:Special:Contributions/Ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής. Bot removed a few bad links. -- Cat chi? 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you also run python interwiki.py -cat:Παλαιά Διαθήκη? this would add interwiki to Hebrew Tanakh pages and Hebrew interwikis to Old Testament pages.  Andreas  (T) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Bible translations are a mess. I was explicitly instructed not to run an interwiki code for that. -- Cat chi? 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.  Andreas  (T) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tuna[edit]

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

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

Oh My Goddess! related character articles[edit]

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

Well, Jack M decided that my correction of TTN's mistaken redirection of the major characters of AMG into the list article was disruptive and against some mythical consensus. I'm asleep so I'm giving others some time to respond. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. Since I have a COI I will wait for a while before getting involved. Good night and good luck. -- Cat chi? 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)