User talk:Dionyseus/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dionyseus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Everywhere Girl
Just want to say thanks for your work on the Everywhere girl page. Noticed in your profile you're 23 from MA. I'm 22 from CT. --TastyHiHatWork 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Dionyseus 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD
Thanks for your vote and link on the Blugrass Brewery AfD. I will let the nom stand for a little while longer, and if it gets a couple of more keep votes withdraw it. ViridaeTalk 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Dionyseus 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
PlayStation article
Yes, it has been discussed before on the PS3 page and unlike what you said at that discussion page, the consensus was to remove the Japanese...Mackan 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- The first vote ended 4-3, one vote higher doesn't qualify as concensus, and the Japanese secondary name was never removed. And it looks like this time the vote is 5-2 in favor of keeping it. The Playstation 2 article has had the Japanese secondary name since January of 2004,[1] and no one has ever been bothered by it. All of a sudden you are all up in arms about it for the Playstation 3 article. I have no idea why you're so up in arms about such a trivial matter, nevertheless I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes. Dionyseus 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- This vote doesn't count as proper procedure wasn't followed (which is the reason I haven't cast my vote). See Wikipedia:Straw polls. No, I shouldn't have used the word consensus, that was mistaken (but you shouldn't have said there was "overwhelming support for the Japanese name"). I think your comment "I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes" shows of a lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia principles. You seem to have made up your mind without listening to my arguments, and unwilling to listen to any further argumentation. Yes, it is a rather trivial matter and I didn't intend to start an argument about it, that's why I at first just removed the katakana. But if it's gonna be an argument it should be a fair one and I'm clearly stating why the katakana doesn't belong in the article. Mackan 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have read your arguments and I believe they are incorrect. Both votes have shown that your argument has no concensus. The Playstation 2 article has had the katakana name since January 2004. [2]I think your removal of the katakana from the Playstation article, [3] and your removal of the katakana from the Nintendo Gamecube article, [4] were erroneous because you claim to have reached concensus when in fact it did not. If you refuse to abide by the concensus then we clearly should request a mediation case. Dionyseus 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your behavior is starting to come off as infecting when you revert my changes to PS2 and Gamecube and especially when you say "The concensus is 5-2 in favor of keeping the secondary Japanese name in the Playstation 3 article. Do not delete the name until a decision is made)". First of all, as I've already told you and stated more than once on the PS3 talk page, the straw poll is not valid (and even if had been a valid straw poll, polls are never binding, see Wikipedia: Straw polls). Secondly, if you are unbiased why would you then not complain about user:Havok reverting the PS3 page after stating he wouldn't revert it but argue about it. Mackan 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm protecting those pages from blanking of the Japanese secondary name. As for Havok, take a look at your user page, he gave a perfectly valid reason for placing the Japanese secondary name back into the article. Dionyseus 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never said in my reverts we had reached consensus, I merely meant that my reasons for removing the name could be found in more detail at the PS3 talk page. You believe my arguments are incorrect but you won't specify why! I think you are wasting people's time if you can't even argue about a simple thing like if the katakana should be included or not without requesting meditation. Please address my arguments at the PS3 talk page. Also there is no consensus reached right now so how could I refuse it? Especially when I haven't touched the article in question since Havok took it up on the talk page.Mackan 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've already given many reasons why the katakana name should not be removed. For example, one of your arguments is that the katakana name takes up too much space. That's clearly false and no one has ever complained about it in the Playstation 2 article and that name has been there since January 2004. [5] The only person who has complained about it taking up too much space is you for the Playstation 3 article. Dionyseus 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your 2 arguments are "It's a Japanese console" without any further reasoning and the 2nd one "it's short" (just as frank). You seem to have little knowledge of the Japanese language, not a crime in itself but you won't listen to somebody who obviously posseses more knowledge on the subject than you. Yes, it's a Japanese product but romaji, roman letters such as used in the name "PLAYSTATION 3" are also a part of the Japanese language. You seem to have a misguided conception that only katakana, hiragana and kanji should be regarded as Japanese, when in fact, the official name in Japan as well as elsewhere is the latin lettering "PLAYSTATION 3". Also, I'm not the only one who has addressed the fact that it's taking up space, see the old vote where one user referred to it as "verbal pollution".Mackan 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well first you claimed that I never gave any reason to support the inclusion of the name, and now you admit that I give two reasons. Well now you can add another reason, Sony of Japan sometimes uses the katanaka to refer to the Playstation 3. [6] Dionyseus 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're obviously trying to play some "war of words" with me, and you keep on lying, which you've done since your first post on the current dispute. I never said you didn't give any reasons for inclusion, I said you didn't respond to my arguments, which you still haven't. To be frank, Wikipedia would be better off without people like you who have no interest in an honest debate. I shall have no further dealings with you, although I think it's to the detriment of the PS3, PS2 etc articles I don't have any desire to waste more time dealing with people like you. Mackan 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Havok (T/C/c) 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're obviously trying to play some "war of words" with me, and you keep on lying, which you've done since your first post on the current dispute. I never said you didn't give any reasons for inclusion, I said you didn't respond to my arguments, which you still haven't. To be frank, Wikipedia would be better off without people like you who have no interest in an honest debate. I shall have no further dealings with you, although I think it's to the detriment of the PS3, PS2 etc articles I don't have any desire to waste more time dealing with people like you. Mackan 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well first you claimed that I never gave any reason to support the inclusion of the name, and now you admit that I give two reasons. Well now you can add another reason, Sony of Japan sometimes uses the katanaka to refer to the Playstation 3. [6] Dionyseus 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your 2 arguments are "It's a Japanese console" without any further reasoning and the 2nd one "it's short" (just as frank). You seem to have little knowledge of the Japanese language, not a crime in itself but you won't listen to somebody who obviously posseses more knowledge on the subject than you. Yes, it's a Japanese product but romaji, roman letters such as used in the name "PLAYSTATION 3" are also a part of the Japanese language. You seem to have a misguided conception that only katakana, hiragana and kanji should be regarded as Japanese, when in fact, the official name in Japan as well as elsewhere is the latin lettering "PLAYSTATION 3". Also, I'm not the only one who has addressed the fact that it's taking up space, see the old vote where one user referred to it as "verbal pollution".Mackan 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've already given many reasons why the katakana name should not be removed. For example, one of your arguments is that the katakana name takes up too much space. That's clearly false and no one has ever complained about it in the Playstation 2 article and that name has been there since January 2004. [5] The only person who has complained about it taking up too much space is you for the Playstation 3 article. Dionyseus 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your behavior is starting to come off as infecting when you revert my changes to PS2 and Gamecube and especially when you say "The concensus is 5-2 in favor of keeping the secondary Japanese name in the Playstation 3 article. Do not delete the name until a decision is made)". First of all, as I've already told you and stated more than once on the PS3 talk page, the straw poll is not valid (and even if had been a valid straw poll, polls are never binding, see Wikipedia: Straw polls). Secondly, if you are unbiased why would you then not complain about user:Havok reverting the PS3 page after stating he wouldn't revert it but argue about it. Mackan 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have read your arguments and I believe they are incorrect. Both votes have shown that your argument has no concensus. The Playstation 2 article has had the katakana name since January 2004. [2]I think your removal of the katakana from the Playstation article, [3] and your removal of the katakana from the Nintendo Gamecube article, [4] were erroneous because you claim to have reached concensus when in fact it did not. If you refuse to abide by the concensus then we clearly should request a mediation case. Dionyseus 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- This vote doesn't count as proper procedure wasn't followed (which is the reason I haven't cast my vote). See Wikipedia:Straw polls. No, I shouldn't have used the word consensus, that was mistaken (but you shouldn't have said there was "overwhelming support for the Japanese name"). I think your comment "I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes" shows of a lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia principles. You seem to have made up your mind without listening to my arguments, and unwilling to listen to any further argumentation. Yes, it is a rather trivial matter and I didn't intend to start an argument about it, that's why I at first just removed the katakana. But if it's gonna be an argument it should be a fair one and I'm clearly stating why the katakana doesn't belong in the article. Mackan 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Goodbye
Then please stop your rampant agenda against any news source you do not personally like. Calling one of the most respected technology news sources a blog has no bearing in fact and only proves that nothing you say is to be trusted. Do not attempt to contact me again. And by the way, it's always the trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who cite WP:AGF, never the legitimate users. jgp (T|C) 01:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you won't have to worry about me getting involved with you anymore. I'm done with you, I'm done with technology articles, and once I'm done with a large project that I've recently started (which will take a while, but it will be 99% of my contributions, and only the small minority interested in Super Sentai will care), I'll be done with Wikipedia. jgp (T|C) 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate your personal attacks, and I most certainly don't appreciate you indirectly calling me a troll and vandal. I have alerted the authorities to remedy this situation. Dionyseus 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- You have alerted the authorities? For what? I am sure that jgp is quaking in his boots. I'll go further to say that not only is jgp right about WP:AGF, but I read the deletion discussion for EvGirl and I've found you downright offensive and without intelligence, humility, or humor. To armchair psychoanalyze you, I think you are powerless in real life, so you have become the control freak/bully that you are here. To think that people like you have any power within the Wikipedia, is disheartening at best. Do you drown puppies for fun in your spare time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.175.16 (talk • contribs) .
- Yes, this guy is the most petty wikipedian I have ever seen.. what is your problem man? Come on, add knowledge to Wiki, not take it away! I have never felt like going away from Wikipedia before but with people like you, I am really thinking about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.143.122 (talk • contribs) .
- You are somewhat misunderstanding here, as demonstrated by replies and the turn the debate took, the trigger was rather the libellous tone and uncivil attitude. Anonimity isn't a license for uncivility in posts, and this is of especial importance for administrative tasks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.207.75 (talk • contribs) .
- Hello, "the authorities" speaking. Dionyseus, I've had a little word with Jgp. I think it's a bit sensitive of you to label his posts personal attacks, though. And his point about WP:AGF is a vaild one: it's a bad idea to throw around accusations of violating WP:AGF if you want to make a good impression. Take a look at WP:AAGF, it has some interesting thoughts on the subject. By contrast, User:68.1.175.16, you are out of line. Please don't armchair psychoanalyze people on Wikipedia. I'm serious. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is the esssence of WP:NPA. The inside of Dionyseus' head, or his real life, aren't your business. Talk about his posts, don't make remarks about him. Seriously. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
- Thanks Bishonen. I've been getting attacked by The Inquirer and Everywhere Girl fans because I was the nominator for its deletion. The Inquirer published an article attacking me and Wikipedia in general. [7] Dionyseus 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, "the authorities" speaking. Dionyseus, I've had a little word with Jgp. I think it's a bit sensitive of you to label his posts personal attacks, though. And his point about WP:AGF is a vaild one: it's a bad idea to throw around accusations of violating WP:AGF if you want to make a good impression. Take a look at WP:AAGF, it has some interesting thoughts on the subject. By contrast, User:68.1.175.16, you are out of line. Please don't armchair psychoanalyze people on Wikipedia. I'm serious. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is the esssence of WP:NPA. The inside of Dionyseus' head, or his real life, aren't your business. Talk about his posts, don't make remarks about him. Seriously. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
- You are somewhat misunderstanding here, as demonstrated by replies and the turn the debate took, the trigger was rather the libellous tone and uncivil attitude. Anonimity isn't a license for uncivility in posts, and this is of especial importance for administrative tasks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.207.75 (talk • contribs) .
- Yes, this guy is the most petty wikipedian I have ever seen.. what is your problem man? Come on, add knowledge to Wiki, not take it away! I have never felt like going away from Wikipedia before but with people like you, I am really thinking about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.143.122 (talk • contribs) .
The Inquirer
Thanks for the note. I think the Inquirer is irked about your and other people's negative comments about the Inquirer, rather than Everywhere Girl (I had barely heard of the Inquirer before this, so don't have an opinion one way or the other). But it's nothing something they can do much about - they possibly can get WP central administration to authorize the rebuilding of the The Inquirer article (so every negative claim would have to be rigorously sourced), but that's about it. Bwithh 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sharon Janis
You seem quite adept at making a reasonable argument. After reading my latest draft of the article, available on the Sharon Janis discussion page, perhaps I could get the benefit of hearing some of your debating skills. If you believe I'm wrong, show something like the belief I do in saving it. User:Headshaker 09:15 15 July 2006
- Hi, I'm not familiar with Sharon Janis, but I'll give it a look. Dionyseus 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Inquirer/Wikiparrots
Just thought you'd like to know that as of time of writing, the Inqurier front page has a large side banner with a picture of a parrot. If you hover your cursor over the banner, the message reads "Wikiparrots are really geniuses", and the banner links to a newspaper article about new research on parrot intelligence which show that the birds are much smarter than previously thought and have intelligences comparable to chimps, dolphins and uh... small children. Very trivial stuff, but I'll take it as a begrudging compliment from the Inquirer, and give them credit that this is a sign that they have a sense of humour about their puffed up claims of "outrage" over Wikipedia/Everywhere Girl etc. Bwithh 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hah I saw it now, thanks Bwithh. Dionyseus 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dionyseus! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael / 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support!
| Greetings, Dionyseus. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :) |
- You're welcome, keep up the great work. Dionyseus 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your RfA support!
|
Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA! | |
| To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
- Y'know what's really funny? All that and they still haven't told me what's in the half-full glass... :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hah ;p You're welcome Kylu. Dionyseus 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Misza13's pile!
 |
Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. |
|
Parimarjan Negi as second youngest GM
I know of the Chessbase article. Problem is that the date of the last norm is said to be 1 July 2006 [8]. If that is the case, he was 13 years, 4 months (not 3), 22 days. I suspected an honest miscalculation and wanted to provoke someone to verify what date is the correct one.--EvenT 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently you are correct. Carlsen is therefore the second youngest Grandmaster, Negi is third. Dionyseus
- Now it turns out that the age of Magnus Carlsen becoming Grandmaster was one month wrong. Correct is 13 years, 4 months (not 3), 27 days, referring to 26 April 2004 when he won his 3rd GM norm in Dubai.--EvenT 10:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
UCMST
I attend the school. What I was adding is pure fact. Please allow me to enhance the page since I know what I'm talking about.
Thank you.
Benjamin M. Trueman (1/69.14.43.97 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC))^-1
- Hi, you cannot add yourself as a reference. Claims must be verifiable and cannot be sourced by Wikipedians. Dionyseus 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred the Undercover Cat
Thanks for the edit. While I agree that all cats should be kept indoors (mine are), I felt that saying as such in the article was inappropriate. Your edit about him "escaping his home" is a perfect compromise, the wording is very smooth and is in keeping with the tone of the article. Thanks again. Rpelham 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Rpelham
I'm not taking offense, Dionyseus, and appreciate your speediness, but when my first edit summary says "Started article, more in a few minutes," you could give me more than 7 minutes before nominating it for deletion. :-) TheronJ 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Theronj. I did see your note on the edit summary, that's why I did not nominate it for deletion, I prodded it for deletion thus allowing you to provide a valid reason for the inclusion of the article rather than nominating it for deletion automatically. I'm currently reviewing the evidence you have recently added to the article. Dionyseus 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Give me a couple days. I agree that notability is a close call -- he's widely cited on the Islamic internet sites, but I'm not familiar enough with them to judge which sites, if any, are reliable or notable. TheronJ
Via Anelli Wall
My english is really bad, so I have problems to explain myself; I had no idea that the Guardian Unlimited interested himself of via Anelli, and I'm very surprised! :-) I still think that the wall does not deserves an article, but I suppose that the article will remain on en.wiki (and on fr.wiki and de.wiki, translated from the same user, I suppose).
Note that there is no article about it in it.wiki, and chatting with others admin (I am an it.wiki admin too) we were quite sure that it is not an important fact; it's really more important the whole via Anelli problem, but I don't believe to be able to change the article myself.
Just don't think that I am trying to delete that article for my political ideas or something similar :-)
Warning
- It is usually consider a bad taste to remove warnings from your talk page. If you believe the warnings are in bad faith, please explain it. Jgp, can you be more specific what edits of Dionisius you consider a violation of WP:NPOV? abakharev 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dio removed (sourced) information from The Inquirer that is necessary for NPOV. It concerns a mistake published by the Inquirer: the mistake was made by a source the Inquirer cited, which misquoted its own source. Thus, it wasn't the Inquirer's own mistake. Dio was removing any references to the mistake coming from a source other than the Inquirer, and was reverting any attempt to add it back. There is a very large difference between publishing false information that one made up and being misled by a source: the latter was the case, and Dio has been removing all references to that, leading the page to imply that the former was the case. He has since given up on removing the statements, but he persists in removing the warnings from his talk page. jgp TC 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the unencyclopedic sentence I removed: [9]. Jgp then claimed I violated the NPOV policy, and in his edit summary he said he "re-added" the sentence that I removed, but clearly he modified the sentence to be encyclopedic: [10], apparently trying to make it seem as if I had removed an encyclopedic sentence when I did not. Dionyseus 07:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I think the phrase Dionisius removed was awkward. It is probably worth to explain that the error in publication was a good faith error caused by the Inquirer's source rather than e.g. a bribe from NVDIA or Microsoft, but I see no indications Dionisius removed the phrase to advance a particular point of view. I have removed the warnings from the talk page of Dionisius. In future: Jgp, please assume WP:AGF and Dionisius, avoid removing warnings yourself abakharev 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Abakharev, much appreciated. Dionyseus 08:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll drop this for now. For the record, this is not an isolated incident: Dio has a record of making POV edits on The Inquirer ([11] being particularly egregious). jgp TC 08:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- That edit is based on facts, but I agreed to allow the 'Nintendo Game Gear' and 'Fudo' claim to be removed from the article because it did not meet the verifiability criteria, also I didn't feel that these two claims were as big an issue as the other errors The Inquirer has made. For the record, Jgp has a history of personally attacking me: [12][13] I will bring this issue to arbitration, I believe his personal attacks on me require a ban. Dionyseus 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I think the phrase Dionisius removed was awkward. It is probably worth to explain that the error in publication was a good faith error caused by the Inquirer's source rather than e.g. a bribe from NVDIA or Microsoft, but I see no indications Dionisius removed the phrase to advance a particular point of view. I have removed the warnings from the talk page of Dionisius. In future: Jgp, please assume WP:AGF and Dionisius, avoid removing warnings yourself abakharev 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the unencyclopedic sentence I removed: [9]. Jgp then claimed I violated the NPOV policy, and in his edit summary he said he "re-added" the sentence that I removed, but clearly he modified the sentence to be encyclopedic: [10], apparently trying to make it seem as if I had removed an encyclopedic sentence when I did not. Dionyseus 07:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The Inquirer
I'd be more inclined to indulge you if you hadn't falsely accused me of sending you death threats, much less wikilawyering your way for the past year. Moreover, I'm not inclined to back off when the ArbCom is currently ongoing, and my assertions about you have been vindicated by your continued pattern of behavior. It is not your right to delete my posts, since you can hardly be called an impartial custodian on this matter (since the topic is you yourself). If you are so certain that your behavior has been NPOV and kosher, you shouldn't worry about it. Otherwise, let an admin (not someone with whom you're buddy buddy) decide that it's inappropriate. The fact of the matter is that you glob on to every new rule you encounter, and try to abuse it to your advantage (e.g. accusing me of stalking, when it's simply collecting evidence for an ongoing ArbCom case). Danny Pi 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- You claim you didn't send me the death threats, however the arbcom decided that they cannot prove whether or not it came from you, this does not necessarily mean you are innocent. You make claims of wikilawyering, yet you did not provide any evidence in the arbcom. Again you make your claim that I'm "buddy buddy" with certain admins, yet you provide no such evidence. As for your off-topic post in The Inquirer talk page, I have requested for an administrator to look into it. Dionyseus 13:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)