Jump to content

User talk:Equazcion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:DxmFlat+3d.jpg stereochemistry

Your stick-structure and the 3D images of Dextromethorphan do not agree: cis vs trans B/C ring fusion (should be cis, like the stick structure) and I think the the two images are enantiomers of each other as well. I replaced the images on Wikipedia, but not sure if you have used the images you created in other places. DMacks 06:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that they were different from each other. I'm not sure about the terminology you're using, as I'm no chemist, but I noticed that the two structures are sort of mirror-images of each other in a way. There's a flat plane that makes up the majority of the molecule, with protrusions on either side, and the protrusions are on opposite sides in the two images. I didn't make either of the images though. The stick structure was already there on the DXM page. I then added the 3D image, which I found on another site, and got permission from the author to use it. I found that it displayed better if I stitched the two images together into one file. Anyway, I haven't examined the structures you posted (and I won't have the time to any time soon), but if you know what you're talking about then I have no problem with you replacing the images. :)Equazcion 01:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting at Die Hand Die Verletzt

You have reverted that three times today. I'm not planning to revert it again, and you certainly should not, because of the 3 revert rule. Let's keep the discussion on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for removing it

Saves us both a lot of bother. I think we both had some things to learn, and hopefully we'll do better next time. Hell, hopefully there won't BE a next time. Xfpisher 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the irrelevant portion of the discussion, but archived the rest to Archive 5, to discourage the further re-insertion of the personal attacks and irrelevant arguments. 17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making the stuff I added to User:Anchor Link Bot much, much better. Cheers, CWC 02:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the compliment :) Equazcion 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On reporting vandals

If you run into blatant vandalism of the sort committed by Jewbagkd (talk · contribs), please don't hesitate to file a report at WP:AIV. WP:AN/I is an investigative forum and may not inspire a timely response to requests for administrator intervention. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks, I'll remember that in future. 00:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted an editing of mine -> Why ?

I know, it was not yet as good as it should be. I was just doing a second edit that would have made it better, but as I clicked to save my new change, there was an editing conflict (with you, I guess). Looking what happened, I saw that you have just reverted my contribution (to a user page) - without even moving it first to "his" talk page! And don't tell me that I shouldn't have edited there! Read first what "he" communicates to users just above my insertion before undoing my contrib' again. Now I have not enough time today to continue what I was doing. If you dislike my contribution, MOVE it to the t. page. I'll now revert your revert! --UKe-CH 15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussions are really for talk pages. Just like you're free to edit his user page, I'm free to revert those edits -- that's the harsh reality. There isn't anyone who would allow your edits to stand, because they simply don't belong there. When I'm not there to revert them, a million other people will be. Trust me. Your stuff just will not stay there. You should just put stuff like that in the talk page in the future, that's all. No one will delete them from there. 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes to WP:REL

I've done what I can to make the proposal clearer, especially the "Content" and "Interactions between subjects" sections. You'll have to let me know if it's still unclear, and if there's anything else you think still needs work. Thanks for your input so far.--Father Goose 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes, although I did tweak it a little. See my edit and talk page comment there. 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I made one small tweak to your tweak.--Father Goose 05:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of content

I think that it is important to compare the harm to be done to WP by a bloated rule system against the good intentions of well-meaning proponents. No individual rule-set will harm the project significantly, but we really face a problem as writers, that we will choke the project with contradictory and/or confusing policies, guidelines, essays. It's not about the one thing, it's about the accumulation (AKA Tragedy of the commons. Compromises have been offered, but blanketed by mountains of defensive rhetoric -- please look closely at the conversations. --Kevin Murray 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But you said the guideline has no chance of succeeding. So who cares what the potential negative impact is?
Either it has no chance of developing a consensus, or it DOES have that chance and you don't want that to happen for fear of the harm it could cause. It's one or the other. You can't keep switching back and forth. If it has no chance, let it die. If it has a chance, then it should get a chance. Either way, it means you should not be continuing with your schoolyard bullying. You're either avoiding a possible consensus in favor of your personal opinion, or you're hindering the efforts of something completely harmless that's doomed to definite failure.
Feel free to clarify which of those describes your motivations. 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur in theory, but in practice proponents for these type of pages eventually begin to claim consensus if there is no further objection, and claim that the longevity of their efforts validates the project. Please read NG's constant claim of consensus etc. And FG's claim that an absense of opposition (silence) means consent. Consider the policy statement: " A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." How am I showing "poor intentions" by trying to enforce the policy? I didn't come here with animosity toward the project or the proponents, just two concerns: (1) inexperience of the proponents, and (2) a resultant unnecessary proposal. --Kevin Murray 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone claims the longevity of efforts or an absence of opposition as consent, then they would simply be wrong, and you could deal with that when the time comes. There's no reason to predict that eventuality and furthermore to implement your own foretelling that no real consensus can be reached and you may as well work towards preventing a fake one from accumulating. That's just ridiculous. It's not a reason. Who are you to say that the only possible consensus would be a fake one? And so what if it is? Do you think a fake consensus would actually make it through to make a proposal into a guideline? Is that really your fear here? 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What gives?

First paragraph below is copied from Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content#Rejected status —WikiLen 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to see the efforts of someone with such good intentions go to waste because of people with such bad intentions. Kevin and Wikilen, I'm not sure if you've listened to yourselves recently, but you've been nothing but adversarial. You've created a fight out of thin air. I just don't see the need for this attitude. If FG's proposal is such a bad idea and has no chance of succeeding then just let him finish it so it can fail and die. I think that would accomplish your apparent goal of quelling him a lot more quickly than this constant hindering. Live and let die.

06:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose is not blocked, no one is stopping him from developing a Relevance concept. The only thing stopped is having the project carry some weight in edit disputes. As to giving him a chance... that was fully done. His original proposal was a "three questions" approach. We gave him a full court on that one. In the end he said, "Earlier this week, I was finally able to see that the 'three questions' were not going to be an effective approach." The "three questions" approach was his whole proposal. He got to carry that all the way to the end. Regarding your very reasonable appeal, "just let him finish it so it can fail and die" — didn't I do that? It is his having a second chance at a "Proposal" status that has been problematic. In my opinion, one can't claim a right to carry the "Proposal" tag indefinitely — a bad precedent. I hope you don't still think I was creating "a fight out of thin air"? —WikiLen 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, the above is my motivation — now to your point on "adversarial". I was at all times fully aware I was being "adversarial" — to answer your question "not sure if you've listened to yourselves." In discussions with FG I called my approach "brutal." It was a very conscious and necessary choice — IMHO. He responds well to ideas of content but not so well to ideas of context. Despite the adversarial stance we are not enemies — a fact we should celebrate. This struggle over moderation, though, is probably not done yet. Check out my Incremental approach suggestion. —WikiLen 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So your "brutality", including your having been in favor of putting the proposal into a rejected or essay status, was merely a tool that you used to get FG to listen to your suggestions? I mean if I'm wrong then please correct me, as I must obviously be failing miserably to understand your explanation here. But even after two paragraphs of it I still don't see any excuse for your adversarial nature in this proposal, despite your very different polite demeanor here, which if you were hoping would prove something, it hasn't. I've been reading everything you've written on the relevancy talk page and it is for lack of a better term, shameful.
As for giving him a chance: His approach is different this time. Why not give him a second chance? People deserve second chances, don't they? Again, for the same reasons: If it's doomed to fail, let it fail, again. Where's the harm? If you're sick of looking at FG or his proposals then simply ignore the project -- let someone else argue with him. Its existence doesn't harm you in any way. Simply remove it from your watch list, and you won't have to hear about it anymore. 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We are carrying this "brutal" metaphor too far. You have reframed my sometimes "brutal" approach into a behavior of "brutality." For the record: I have not been abusive to FG; have not insulted him; have always been polite, as FG put it, "In the entire time I've known you, you've been studiously civil with your words." A brutal approach, as I see it, is staying on-topic with as few words as possible when—for whatever reason—the discussion just wants to go off-topic. —WikiLen 03:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The full quote: "In the entire time I've known you, you've been studiously civil with your words, but unfortunately not with your deeds."
Here is my harshest criticism of you yet, and I don't state it idly: you are intellectually dishonest. Many, many times now, I've seen you take words out of context to support whatever argument you wished to make. You switched from "it's an essay" to "it's a failed policy" in the space of a day. You took Mlewan's ambivalent words and turned them into an absolute ("things are turning around in circles"). You take my willingness to change the proposal in response to feedback as evidence that the proposal has failed. You trumpet WP:POL's description of failed proposals while shutting your eyes to its description of active proposals. You quote half of a sentence in which I do accuse you of being abusive and claim it as evidence to the contrary. You are fixated on a single goal and are prepared to say anything and do anything to bring about that goal. You have been willing to misrepresent things constantly. You swat away or selectively omit anything that does not support your stance.
You wonder why you're being accused of being argumentative? Because your arguments are specious and dishonest. You're not convincing anyone of your views, just trying to smother us with constant, repetitious argumentation. A long time ago you and I spoke of "cranks" -- you have become one. I cannot pull that punch. I do not mean that even remotely as an insult. It may be a withering criticism, but it is warranted.
You've been a fanatic ever since you fixed your sights on "guideline not needed" (not because you hold that view -- you're entitled to it) but because of how you've been behaving since that time. You've been an absolute, tendentious, brutal, unremitting pugilist. That you have not made any personal comments during that time does not make your behavior any less wrongful. And your zeal for your cause also does not excuse your behavior -- it creates your bad behavior. That zeal corrupts your cause. To leap to a dramatic example, I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers believed in the absolute rightness of their cause, with a horrifying result. The quote at the bottom of WP:FANATIC expresses it perfectly: "Fanaticism obliterates the feelings of humanity." Please please please please please extract yourself from this disastrous mania. Please talk to anyone you trust and ask them if you may have strayed from your best judgement in pursuit of your goals here.
I apologize for how bluntly I have had to put this. I do not know how to get you to hear it. I do not know how to get you to see it. I do not know. I do not know. You have gone into a place where no one can reach you. That is a terrible place into which to let yourself go. Please come back. You were once a person with whom a person could hold a constructive dialog, an exchange of ideas. The loss of that person has been a disaster. Please come back.--Father Goose 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"I apologize for how bluntly I have had to put this." — no, it's OK. Better that I am informed. Intellectual honesty is an important virtue — thanks for invoking that context. To be frank, I intend, with your permission, to shift the context from me to our relationship. I find the honesty problem is in our collegial relationship. But first: These specific complaints of yours look like rather ordinary behaviors and misunderstandings. They don't make a case one way or the other for intellectual honesty. Now back to our relationship. My struggle with you has been with the non-sequitur jumps that you make, into "what do you think needs to be fixed with the proposal." My hunch is you felt these jumps were a refocusing done with a kind heart. From your perspective, things were off topic and it was time to get them back on topic. But it is not right. It manipulated the discussion in favor of your point of view. And here's the rub. I of course, did the same. I too did non-sequitur jumps to get us back to what I believed was on-topic — not a nice thing either. Our failure to discuss or even own up to the jump wars was intellectually dishonest. Lets agree on the context for any discussions in the future and call each other on any non-sequitur jumps, should they happen again. Awareness is great — thanks. —WikiLen 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding," merely a tool that you used to get FG to listen to your suggestions": FG is avowedly serving as the self-appointed moderator for the project, "Relevance." As the moderator, he is the gatekeeper I must go through. If he doesn't listen or address the issues, he should expect a fight. I expect the same from you towards me. —WikiLen 03:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not answering all your points above. We have a lot of threads going on at once. I think I have hit the key points (of yours) not already addressed at the talk page. —WikiLen 03:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring request

Would you mind if I (or you) moved your "get mature" comment directed to me to my talk page (or yours)? I will respond to it there. —WikiLen 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you didn't want your adversarial stance to become a part of this discussion then you shouldn't have exhibited it in the first place. You furthermore made a comment excusing it, which I had no choice but to respond to. This is the very core of the issue at hand: The way you were acting hindered the proposal's efforts, which is why it should be given another chance.
You have admitted to being adversarial, and using it as a tool of some sort. Well, if my comment is inappropriate for a guideline talk page, then your "adversarialness," if there is such a word, also had no place there. You can't act that way and not expect someone to call you on it.
If you want me to move my comment addressing your adversarial nature then you'll have to agree, on the talk page, that the rejection tag which you pretty much caused with your bad attitude, be removed. I think that's only fair. You can't act that way, get the result you want, and then complain when someone addresses it directly.

03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Exactly what did I do that you don't like? Quote the words if need be. —WikiLen 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You tell me:
"I was at all times fully aware I was being 'adversarial' ... In discussions with FG I called my approach 'brutal.' It was a very conscious and necessary choice — IMHO." —WikiLen 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So it appears that whether or not you were being adversarial, or even brutal, as you put it, is not in dispute. You and Kevin used that brutality to hinder the efforts of the proposal and get it rejected before its proponents were even done developing it. The only difference is, Kevin is now being reasonable in light of realizing that fact, whereas you are not. 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No I mean where have I said anything to you that you found offensive? This is where I am confused. Are you saying that I said something addressed to you at the project talk page that you found offensive or are you just saying that you find me offensive? I have no issue with you discussing me. I am just getting enough complaints thrown at me by you that I can't keep them all straight. FYI: My preferences for replying to purely personal attacks are in this order:
  1. Attacks and replies at a user talk page.
  2. Attacks at the project talk page — my replies at a user talk page.
  3. Attacks at the project talk page — no replies from me.
  4. Attacks at the project talk page — my replies at a user talk page.
As you can see, I don't like to take up project talk space on off-topic issues, even if it means unflattering charges against me go unanswered. I aim to be doing (2) or perhaps (3) if you do more complaints than I have time to handle. I will place my replies at your talk page — seems only fair. —WikiLen 05:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It was a mistake on my part to use the term "brutal" (adversarial works). "Brutal" is too easily confused with abusive — a confusion you are brutally taking advantage of. :) WikiLen 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should my adversarial stance to be a part of a policy discussion?

What does my stance have to do with a policy? I am referring to this comment you made above:

I'm sorry but if you didn't want your adversarial stance to become a part of this discussion then you shouldn't have exhibited it in the first place. You furthermore made a comment excusing it, which I had no choice but to respond to. This is the very core of the issue at hand: The way you were acting hindered the proposal's efforts, which is why it should be given another chance.

You make it sound like an adversarial stance is a bad thing. Is there a Wikipedia policy that could aid us here? — one that mentions "adversarial"? —WikiLen 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What is with this hypocritical stance?

Equazcion, you are hammering at your adversaries — way beyond what is appropriate. Your are not at all opposed to being adversarial yourself and yet you argue against being adversarial. You complain others are bullying yet you bully.

Phrases of Equazcion

  1. ...means you should not be continuing with your schoolyard bullying.
  2. ...would mean you should back off from all the bullying for that time.
  3. I suggest you find a way to control yourself and act like a mature adult rather than a schoolyard bully.
  4. So your "brutality", including ... was merely a tool that you used ...?
  5. ...and that means either closing your mouth for that time or at least laying off the brutality...

You know what civil behavior is. I request civil behavior. —WikiLen 09:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the only way to deal with people who insist on taking an adversarial stance is to get adversarial yourself. It seems to have worked, since a compromise has been reached on this issue. The relevant discussion has been archived. You are the only one left who continues to argue about it. I've accomplished what I set out to do, a consensus has been established, and so I am finished arguing with you. Good luck in everything that you do. 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm on board. I liked a different compromise but this is the one I expected. Thanks for your help. It is your energy that got us over that last 1/4 inch. I could feel it shouting from the screen, still do. However, don't give me any bullshit about this rudeness stuff. I just don't buy it — this notion that somehow your rudeness matters, as if your energy, intentions and determination are not enough. Please... —WikiLen 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"You are the only one left who continues to argue about it" — Yea, I wasted some time on replies. I missed KM's call to hold off on editing — was late a night and edits were all over the place. —WikiLen 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I said nothing about rudeness. That was your terminology. I said adversarial. If you're referring to my pointing out your behavioral mistakes, you may call that what you like; however it was key to illustrating that the proposal never got a proper chance, so being the basis for my argument, it was completely necessary. I hope you can understand that. 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Reples:
  • "I said nothing about rudeness" — Yes, this is my own experience: You seem to be using "adversarial" as a cover for rudeness and bullying — examples cited above.
  • "my pointing out your behavioral mistakes" — I would appreciate knowing where you get this notion from. You said I was being adversarial without pointing out how being adversarial is a mistake and — most importantly — without pointing to any Wikipedia policy that says sush is a mistake.
  • "[Equazcion's adversarial behavior] was key to illustrating that the proposal never got a proper [second] chance, so being the basis for my argument, it was completely necessary. I hope you can understand that." — I don't understand how you can say that. Isn't employing your own behavior to illustrate any point against Wikipedia policy. see WP:POINT.
End of replies. —WikiLen 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're done here. 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reforming the process for proposing and changing guidelines

Hi. I appreciate your candid assessment of actions at Relevance. I believe that we need reform for the processes of adopting, changing, and deleting policies, guidelines, etc.. in order to aleviate my concerns, but avoid confrontations. What do you think? --Kevin Murray 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the ambiguity of the {{proposed}} template. It is supposedly appropriate for guidelines in-development, but if at any time during the development process someone can say, "Well it's proposed and there's no consensus so we can now say it's rejected," that's something that needs fixing. It's too open to self-serving interpretation (no offense intended). Perhaps if there were a parameter available for the template, where an editor could actually specify between an in-development proposal and a proposal that is ready for the assessment of consensus/guideline merit. I think that would fix the (main) problem. 16:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. "Proposal in draft" and "Proposal of merit" —WikiLen 18:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
How meaningful is the distinction? "Proposals of merit" are also subject to change, which is to say, further development, as they receive more eyes and more feedback -- heck, even full-blown policies can change a lot over time.
I think the key thing to focus on is the stage where they move from proposals to "rules". Maybe what is needed is a page where proposals are put before as broad a segment of the community as possible, who can say, "no, but if you can fix it, resubmit it", "yes, that seems all right", or "fuck no" (in which case it should be considered rejected). The "promotion to polcy" process right now is left up to anyone, including those who created the proposal, and I'd say that's the real problem.--Father Goose 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean some kind of official submittal for acceptance, if I understand correctly; like the way AfD works, as far as a new section of a more public page being created where people can quasi-vote to accept, reject, or keep in development. I think that's a good idea too. It could be called "Proposals for Acceptance" (PfA) or something :) 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I take it from the new section below that you're not for the AfD-style submittal of proposals. What kind of system do you envision instead, then? back here now 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No, what's below is a separate project, just a dialog I want to hold to help better establish the need for WP:ROC. I don't know exactly what form a proposal-review process should take, but something similar to AfD sounds about right. We should see if Kevin's up for that idea, and Radiant, and any other policy watchdogs we can buttonhole.--Father Goose 02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move this discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Would anyone object to my pasting it there? 02:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Content policy analysis

Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis: let's try to synchronize our views on this subject so that our continuing work on it can be more effective.--Father Goose 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, you're an ambitious fellow, I'll give you that. 23:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I don't plan to change all these things, I just recognize how much they interlock. I want to sound out what the views are of the other editors who have been involved with ROC, since if it ultimately leads to the deletion of even more defensible content, then that's a bad thing. I don't think "pop culture" sections in articles can be kept around, in the long term, but they're even bigger targets when put into their own article. So we should either find a better solution or bite the bullet. Will WikiTrivia be the answer? Mebbe.
My intention with this "analysis" side project is to try to drag the inclusionist set into realizing what can and can't realistically be accomplished. Shit's gonna get deleted and there's not much we can do about it. What's the most inclusive approach we can secure that deletionists will still accept?--Father Goose 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Equazcion, forgive my adding my 2 cents here, but Father Goose asked me the same question and I want to respond to his follow-up. Inclusionists, myself included, do not support including junk in WP. Personally, as an admin I do my share in deleting it, over 100 articles a month on the average, mostly at CSD, about 3% of the total deletions altogether. What we do support is rescuing articles that can be rescued. What I want from this discussion is time to rescue them. It takes over an hour a day for me to try to defend the popular culture articles proposed at AfD--about 1% of the time it would take to nominate them for deletion. This has severely cut into my ability to improve them, or indeed to do other constructive work here. What I've suggested before, and suggest again, is a 6 month moratorium to get them improved. As a second suggestion, parallel to the first, is the recognition that "in popular culture" sections are not trivia, or at least that articles on the use of [X] is creative works is not trivia. Frankly, I will keep going towards at least that last point. I know they're encyclopedic, for I know they're a major component of the study of literature and film generally, & that there are references to prove it, and I will continue at some level in some manner until enough people become convinced to change the policy for at least that part. DGG (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Save the trivia

Oh sorry, I thought that somebody else crossed it out so your vote wouldn't count. --Alien joe 18:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support --Alien joe 18:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for putting things in favor of trivia on the avoid trivia page. I think they should call that page "Wikipedia: Screw up the encyclopedia by putting miscellania everywhere instead of keeping it in order." --Alien joe 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup‎ as aother way of providing input. I do, after all, want to clean it up and improved the sections.DGG (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I only dismiss some things as nonsence. And "we" are teaching me the rules, I am not a newbie. Help those who need it!. User:Alien joe

P.S. I couldn't sign my name on the laptop I typed this on.

Un-Congratulations

I guess if you aren't gonna help, then you wont need that barnstar anymore. --Alien joe 21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

slow down

please first consider whether the mediation on WP:relevance of content might first need to discuss this as a split. And then consider whether the discussion should have the word triva in it. Personally, I think it prejudges the issue--trivia by definition is trivial. I very strongly suggest immediately changing it "in popular culture"--in fact, not even as a move. Delete it and restart it cleanly. DGG (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
neither am I a truly objective party. I may have been a little less active on in the last 2 days, but there are some of the participants who would not accept me in that role. Let me think who should do it. But I think in any case the existing page should be withdrawn. If you put {{db-userreq}} on it, I will delete it. No prejudice against re-creation if that;s what we want to do. I want to think overnight and also consult with FG. I also want to see what comes of the subject having been raised on the mailing list. WikiEn-L. Remember that tomorrow is a holiday in the US DGG (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Petition

moved from another talk page:

Yes there is. Whether or not it conflicts with policy is a matter of opinion, to be expressed at the AfD. The article was made to promote a viewpoint, which your additions hinder. If you think promoting a viewpoint is one of the reasons it should be deleted, then present your opinions at the AfD. That's what it's there for. 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, articles on Wikipedia do not promote a viewpoint. An article should be informative, and not biased. I improved this article. The removal of this information was aggressively POV, and not justifiable. Furthermore most of the signatories were new-ish editors who should not be sheltered from this information. / edg ☺ ★ 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's not an article. The viewpoint isn't on or in an article. It's about Wikipedia policy. So the closest classification is essay. Essays can be POV. Secondly, the article already promotes a viewpoint. You're not changing that by posting these links. And, if you want to inform editors of information, the place to do it is on the talk page. Yes, I'm aware that they're relatively new editors, or else they wouldn't be signing a petition. But for that very reason they see your edits as an insult to what they're trying to accomplish, and the article is about to be deleted anyway. So I'm asking you to leave them alone, out of human kindness. 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying pages in Wikipedia space cannot be edited by editors with different points of view? And you're saying information about conflicting points of view should be confined to the talk page? And new editors should not see these points of view because it is an "insult" to the WP:POVPUSH?
You have a lot of interesting rules. And a feel for dictatorship. / edg ☺ ★ 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Any page can be edited by anyone. Essays on one point of view, however, generally aren't edited by people with the opposite point of view. In the case of an essay, yes, the opposite point of view is best kept to the talk page. These aren't rules. They're common courtesy. If you wrote an essay on something I disagreed with, I would not edit it to express my viewpoint.
I'm not trying to argue policy with you. This is basically a non-issue with regard to policy. The petition will be gone soon. Dictators don't ask for kindness. I am. 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying it's a non-issue, so I should not edit the article. However, you will kindly make the effort of deleting my contributions. In the AfD, you agreed the page be reformatted as a discussion; however, you delete discussion that suggests there may be another point of view. Be forbidding the mention of other legitimate points of view, this page is no longer a point of view or a discussion. It is propaganda.
Dictators ask for kindness when it serves their cause to do so. / edg ☺ ★ 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I agreed that the page be reformatted as an essay and moved to a user subpage. And yes those can be one-sided, and very often are. People with all points of view discuss them, but on their talk pages.
I'm not trying to serve myself. Call off your dogs and listen. I'm trying to be nice to people who are relatively new and didn't know any better. The page is already getting deleted. What more do you want? 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I would like you to do the following:
  • Stop deleting contributions from articles simply because they are contrary to your agenda. It this spirit, please also refrain from rationalizing other reasons to do so.
  • Stop making insulting comments about people who don't share your POV. (I can provide diffs if you are oblivious to this behavior.)
  • Refrain from aggressive edits to style guidelines and policy articles. You seem to understand what Talk pages are for.
  • Recognize that Wikipedia may set rules pertaining to a house style and editorial policy.
  • Recognize that other people have agreed on Wikipedia style and policy, and that aggressive, obstinate editing makes you neither representative of a blossoming new consensus, nor entitled to get your way. There are means of making a case for policy changes, and you seem to know them.
In exchange for this I will assume good faith in presuming your efforts have not been intended to foist your POV on the unknowing, and your sole intent is as stated, to protect poor defenseless newbies from being insulted. That is very noble. Hats off to you sir! / edg ☺ ★ 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying you're making edits to this guy's petition because I made aggressive edits to a guideline?
I don't need to do anything in order to deserve your assumed good faith. That's something you should always be doing. But in answer to those other issues which you seem to have brought into this:
  • I didn't delete your contributions because of any agenda. I'm trying to be welcoming and nice to relatively new editors. I'm sorry if you don't believe me, but it's the truth.
  • I wasn't trying to be insulting. If you're referring to the mob thing, I was pointing out a problem with the current situation at Wikipedia. I wasn't trying to group everyone opposed to my point of view. There are certain people who act a certain way, though, and those are the ones to whom I was referring. If you consider yourself to be among that group, then that's, for lack of better phrasing, your problem.
  • The only "aggressive" edit I made was the status change I made to the trivia guideline. And while I wouldn't do that again, I also can't entirely regret it. I still feel there's a lack of consensus for the guideline, and I don't think it's something easy to prove, with the current lack of guideline processes at Wikipedia. Right now, anyone can promote or demote a guideline at any time, so I did it because I felt it made sense. Whoever decided that there was a consensus to begin with did something similar.
  • I'm fully aware that Wikipedia can set guidelines and policies. That's neither here nor there.
  • I realize other people have agreed. But still other people disagree. I have no qualms about your opinion of me. If you consider me loud and obstinate, that's your business. If it makes you feel any better, just remember that I'm allowed to be that way, and have not violated any guideline or policy in doing so. Hey, I consider you to be [not my favorite person, or words to that effect, i.e., personal attack removed]. I recognize those as merely my opinions though, and the actions which caused those feelings in me are still entirely within your rights. My feelings are something I simply have to deal with. So are yours.
  • OK, enough, both of you. Look at this poor guy's talk page already! He's going to get that lovely orange bar and say "Great, I've got mail, I love mail!", and then it's just going to be you two bickering back and forth. Imagine his disappointment. Seriously, this isn't the right forum for this argument. Please civil down a bit and take it to a relevant talk page. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  05:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, my bad. I should've ended this a long time ago. I'm out. 05:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That's going to be a lot of disappointment. Sorry everyone! / edg ☺ ★ 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So I'm not sure where that leaves us. All these issues are beside the point. I would like you to be nice to other people. That's all. I'm not asking for anything for myself. Recognize the edits on their own merit, instead of judging the person making them. Omitting that added info is simply the nice thing to do, no matter what you think of me. 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You're making a number of presumptions about my intentions. I hope this is not to avoid considering what I am telling you. I have stated my reasons for my contribution to Save the trivia, and it is certainly not because you edited another article. However, I am asking you to refrain from tendentious editing. If you could hear only one thing I am saying, I would like it to be that. / edg ☺ ★ 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. But argue with me on my talk page if you like. Let's leave this guy alone. 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Essays are personal statements, but they are not intended to represent policy, and to avoid their improper use that way, it is well to indicate clearly when something is being proposed that is not currently accepted. Assistance of people who dont agree can be very helpful with that. For a purely personal statement, use a subpage of your user page. DGG (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Continue below if necessary.

Wait a minute

You signed the petition, but it seems you think that it is a bad idea. --Alien joe 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Strawman?

I see no indication that that user is as you claim. WP:AGF! I suggest removing or striking out your response.--Father Goose 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed period to question mark. Hope that's sufficient. When a comment that seems to be intended to support a position actually makes it look worse, those are usually unsigned and anonymous. And the user doesn't return to further defend it, so we'll see if that happens. But so far I do see the indication. 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking through that individual's edit history, I see an infrequent and casual contributor who doesn't seem to have any chip on his/her shoulder. Same for the "mad as hell" one. Seriously, AGF. Keeps the foot out of the mouth.--Father Goose 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trivia

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding several comments at that debate: Please read our policy on Civility, maybe you want to reconsider some of what you wrote. —AldeBaer 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed post

I saw you posted in a discussion and then removed your post. Anyway, I encourage you to restore your post as it is good to read the viewpoints of lots of editors in these discussions. If you have a different opinion, remember that you can always post what you originally had and then use the strike feature, i.e. strike to indicate a change in mind, which I think works better than just an outright removal of the post altogether. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed that post because I realized that I was wrong, at least as far as the current wording of the deletion policy. 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I still think it would have been better to use the strikethrough feature instead then and say something about having changed your mind. Best in any case, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I would've done that if I'd had something to change it to, but I'm undecided. Also, I would normally agree with you in most cases where a !vote/comment was up for a while, seen by a significant number of people and missed when gone; but my post had only been up for 10 minutes, so I didn't see the harm in removing it. 20:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I suppose it's just nice to see some variety of opinion there. Some of these "in popular culture" discussions feel like the same half dozen or so of us over and over. Thanks for the replies! Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia tags

In your edit summary you say "There is no guideline for placement of the tag" [1] but there is: {{Trivia}} under "placement": "This template should be placed at the top of the relevant section." Which is where it was put. I see this tag is up for discussion (and you are against it) but it seems premature to be removing them quite yet. (Emperor 03:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Well usually "guideline" on Wikipedia means an official guideline, see WP:GUIDELINES. The template documentation is just instructions for use of that particular template, but anyone is really free to remove the template or use a different one in place of it (there are usually a few choices of templates for each situation) -- in which case the placement would depend on the new template's documentation. In this case I replaced that trivia template with a talk page version, which is meant to be placed, obviously, on the article's talk page. I did that because I feel it's less cumbersome to the article, while still informing editors of the issue. The deletion discussion is about whether or not to delete that template, but even if/when the result of that discussion is to keep the template, anyone is still free to remove or replace it in articles. There's no policy dictating which template should be used, or even that any template should be used at all.
My goal is actually twofold: I want to reduce the intrusiveness of the trivia tag, so I've been replacing them with the talk-page version. I also made that talk page template recently, and so I'm trying to increase awareness of it among Wikipedia users, so that they know they have that as an option.
That having been said, the choice of which template to use comes down to personal preference. If you place the "regular" template back into the trivia section itself, I won't undo it again, because I think the decision should really be up to the article's frequent editors. Just as long as you're aware that you have a choice.
Thanks for leaving a message instead of revert-warring. That's a pleasant and rare occurrence :) 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If it comes down to personal preference then there is no reason to remove the template either as it is a legitimate use of the template.
That said there are often different types of trivia - useful things needing moving out and items that are genuinely trivial and need removing. I can see the talk page template as coming in handy with the first case (a less intrusive option - I'll probably use it in those circumstances). That said without any guidelines on the right ways to use these templates I can see them both getting used (someone tags the talk page and someone spots a trivia section and tags that). That needn't be a bad thing but it does introduce the possibility for edit warring (with no way of resolving it) as well as introducing a degree of redundancy. Then again redundancy might get the job done so it might not be a big deal.
Of course, following this essay [2] the simplest thing in that case is being bold and removing the trivia section - it is one item that wouldn't be movable to the main entry. (Emperor 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Regarding your comments at the TFD for Template:Trivia

WP:TALK says "It is best to avoid having to change one's comments" because other users may already have responded to your comment. "Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your statement may look to others before you save it. Changing or deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context." And it is generally considered impolite to edit other editors' comments. Also, I think that comments such as "And your use of the template, as you've explained it here, already describes the wrong usage", "this template encourages your behavior -- the wrong behavior", and "I looked through your contribs, because I figured you for someone who likes to tag things rather than fix them. Then I fixed it to make a point" may be interpreted as personal attacks and I do not think they contribute positively to the discussion. Can you please refrain from "torturing" other people in the discussion? The purpose of the discussion is to come to a general agreement, not winning or losing. Your comments about the discussion "livening things up" and that you're "enjoying this" seem to me to indicate that you are not trying to provide helpful suggestions about the template, which should be the focus of the discussion. I think you have made your opinion known with your 107 edits at the TFD so far. If you want to have a further discussion with another editor, perhaps you can do it on each others' talk pages. --Pixelface 04:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right about using "show preview", I have a bad habit of saving my edits prematurely. I'll try to work on that. As for editing other users' comments, the only times I've done that were for minor formatting issues, and for moving new votes to the bottom of the discussion, where they're supposed to go. I've never changed anyone else's words in any way.
Thank you for your other comments. They are noted. 04:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs

I actually tried to transclude TFDs about one and a half years ago, but some silly person reverted on me. Very stupid of them, as we have big problems keeping track of discussions now. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather afraid that I have no time to do so now. Do you know how long it takes to transclude such pages? I think I started the transclusion of AFD pages (or was it FA pages?) a long time ago. It took absolutely forever (was totally worth it though). If you have the time, go for it. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: sig

Copied from User talk:east718:

Hi, I have a question about your signature. I noticed you somehow got the date/timestamp to appear inside the box. When I wrote my signature I was trying to get it to do the same thing, but couldn't figure it out. Could I get a look at your signature code, or could you just describe to me what you did? Thanks :)

16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User responded on this talk page:

I use a template in userspace to contain my signature, and in my preferences, I set up a raw signature of {{subst:user:east718/s}}. Also, instead of signing with ~~~~, you have to sign with ~~~. That should do the trick, but you'll run into the occassional bug, like Twinkle datestamping you twice, SineBot hounding you, and templates that auto-transclude your signature breaking (barnstars mostly). If those bother you, you can set up a shortened sig in your preferences, and sign manually with {{subst:user:equazcion/s}} or whatnot. Hope this helps!  east.718 at 16:31, September 9, 2007 
I see, I didn't think of subst'ing as a workaround to that "no transclusion in signatures" rules. Thanks, that actually helps a lot :) 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You might want to add yourself to Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing, or SineBot will start kicking your ass.  east.718 at 16:53, September 9, 2007 
Just did that, thanks. Check me out -->
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
05:10, September 10, 2007
Thanks again :)

Speedy

True, but I just did not want to block him, protecting the page for one day seemed easier and more practical. I removed the protection though. Garion96 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to mfd. --Alien joe 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

This is in response to an older comment you made. WP:BOLD does apply to policy/guideline pages, but it does not so much apply to page moves. Since they are hard to undo and require admin intervention, one should always be cautious in renaming pages. I see you have suggested a move again at WT:ATS; before going forward with that, please consider using the requested moves process. There have been a lot of moves of that guideline: I personally would object to any more page moves for at least a few months... this is an important guideline and shouldn't be a moving target. Mangojuicetalk 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe they only require admin intervention if you edit the redirect at the "original" page, which you shouldn't do anyway. I figure if we're going to rename it again, we might as well do now; if things are in transition, better to do it all at once instead of dragging it out. However, I'd prominently announce the proposed move on the talk page and wait at least one week. In the face of probable controversy, too much boldness tends to backfire.--Father Goose 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was, they require admin intervention to undo, unlike ordinary edits. Mangojuicetalk 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree and will do that. Mango I understand your concern somewhat but as long as we can establish a consensus I don't see the point in waiting.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
05:58, September 12, 2007
Consensus is not an agreement between one or two editors who happen to be paying attention: it's support in the community of interested editors generally. You can't be sure you have a consensus if you don't make sure people know about the debate and give them a reasonable amount of time to comment. The point of waiting is to get input. I notice you put up the proposed move in a section on the talk page without following the WP:RM process, so I'll take care of that, and I'll post at WP:VPP as well. Mangojuicetalk 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your reason posted at the RM page was a bit thin (one selectively unconvincing line). I hope you don't mind but I replaced it. I appreciate the posting but your explanation just didn't represent my argument for the move at all.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
15:35, September 12, 2007

Moving the Milky Way

Man, that title even sounds like an impossible job ;^). Had a question since I noticed you made some technical fixes at this article and may be the person to ask. I am seeing a need to put Milky Way Galaxy stuff at Milky Way (galaxy) (taking down the redirect), put up Milky Way (night sky) and redirect Milky Way to Milky Way (disambiguation). It looks like doing this will totally lose the talk page at Milky Way. Is there a way to redirect or move the talk page so it follows one of the articles? Halfblue 12:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't lose the talk page. There's an option when moving an article, to move the associated talk page as well. You'll need to move the archives independently, but that's pretty easy.
To clarify what you'd be doing, you'd be moving Milky Way to Milky Way (galaxy), with the option to move the talk page checked (it's a simple checkbox). That move would automatically replace Milky Way with a redirect to Milky Way (galaxy), so you'd then need to change that redirect so it points to Milky Way (disambiguation). At some point you should also move the archives (Talk:Milky Way/Archive 1 to Talk:Milky Way (galaxy)/Archive 1, Talk:Milky Way/Archive 2 to Talk:Milky Way (galaxy)/Archive 2).
I think that should do it. Milky Way (night sky) wouldn't have any existing talk page discussions, which is the only downside. But there's nothing you can really do about that, short of picking out the relevant discussions from the galaxy talk page and pasting them in the night sky talk page -- but that's tedious and not really necessary.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. :)
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
15:57, September 12, 2007

Your signature

I have a concern about it. It often takes up five lines of code, generally three is the accepted limit. I also notice at #Re:_sig that you now use a subst: transclusion to bypass the character limit. This is frowned upon; the limit is there for a reason. In addition, the page in question is a target for vandalism. In light of all of this, I respectfully request that you shorten your signature. i said 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that was frowned upon but it makes sense that it would be. I actually didn't do that to get around the character limit, but to let me format the timestamp. I've also noticed that it produces too much code but I figured I'd wait to see if anyone mentioned it, so now that you have I will work on shortening it.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
03:29, September 13, 2007
Thanks for being so reasonable. I might also suggest that you dont background it in a dark color. This is distrating to me, but there is no policy/ guideline against it; I don't even think it is common practice, just personal preference, so you totally don't have to. i said 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I try to always be reasonable :) I trimmed it down by about 200 characters, and also took your advice on the background color. Hope that's sufficient.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:19, 09/13/2007
Much better. While the dotted outline is tad distracting, nothing enough that even I would ask for a change. Thanks! i said 05:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[3] made on October 9 2007 to Wikipedia:Trivia sections

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I know about 3RR, I wasn't planning on violating it. Thanks :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:51, 10/9/2007
Please do not perform blocks of users over this issue. I believe User:Equazcion's actions have been good faith and exemplary. There have been some problematic blocks already, and some edit warring done by admins. This may be headed for arbitration. Wikidemo 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo, 3RR policy will be enforced if Equazcion makes another revert. There are no exceptions. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to make another revert. It's okay, 3RR is an important policy. I should hope I wouldn't get blocked unless I actually do violate it though, which I have no plans to do. Thanks for the support nonetheless, Wikidemo, I do appreciate it.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:02, 10/9/2007

Is this something you're interested in fighting over?

You've edited A Bathing Ape three times now to restore a In pop culture trivia section, [4] [5] [6] having never edited this article before. Do you really believe this is worth including, or is this another political snit over the words used in edit summaries? If the latter, can you please tell me the correct language to use so this can be removed?

This article is prone to really terrible drive-by edits, and really doesn't need another idiot magnet. / edg ☺ ★ 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't perform edits for the sake of arguing via edit summaries, and I would appreciate it, if you are genuinely interested in constructive conversation with, you would not make an unfounded accusation like that. I think the section should remain because it helps to establish the notability of the article's topic. If I otherwise came across that article I would dismiss it as a clothing brand no one ever heard of, but certain references in popular culture help to inform the reader that the subject is substantial. The reason for the previous removals were sources; the item restored now has a source -- although I would not be averse to it being integrated into another section rather than staying in its own list.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:29, 10/12/2007
Would it be helpful to also integrate into Gun the titles of songs where Gat Murdah mentioned firearms. I think there are some other highly notable pop culture references that could also be included, but Gat would be a good starter. / edg ☺ ★ 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If there were a chance that gun needed any help in establishing notability, then yes, but since there isn't, then no.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:36, 10/12/2007
There are several articles on the Bape product linked from the article, so notability for A Bathing Ape is established. The IPC section is not helpful. / edg ☺ ★ 03:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of those articles are from Asian media, and don't establish notability for (or influence on, if you will) the English-speaking world that, primarily, makes up the reader base of the en Wikipedia.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:47, 10/12/2007
Now when you say "most of", it may suggest to suspicious persons that you are ignoring the New York Times. I shall assume good faith here and suppose you simply have not heard of it, but this scrappy little publication is well-known in some circles and may have some influence and credibility. / edg ☺ ★ 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I will similarly assume good faith in assuming that you simply don't know the meaning of the words "most of".
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:58, 10/12/2007

Merger proposed: Electric helicopter → Helicopter

It has been proposed to merge the content of Electric helicopter into Helicopter. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jetpack article AfD

I have responded to your comment at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

I know we agree on a lot of things, but I appreciate the comment you made on Nick1000's talk page!

Incidently, that's the way that I want to remove all trivia sections: incorporate the material, not remove it (unless it's not salvagable)- Ta bu shi da yu 09:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and yes we are definitely in agreement on that :)
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 09:27, 09/15/2007

Trivia guideline

Using the generic guideline tag, instead of the style tag or the content tag, was meant to be a temporary solution to avoid an edit war :P -- Ned Scott 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. I'll go back.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:49, 09/17/2007

Talk page indenting

So, I'm curious. Do you feel I should have indented, for instance, my comment in this thread, or is it mostly just my starting a new section that bothers you?--Father Goose 04:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's another place where you should've just indented. Indenting doesn't necessarily mean that you're replying specifically to the last comment. People who are adding their perspective to a general conversation will also indent. When you outdent completely or create a new section, it's like you're excluding yourself from the discussion that's gone on until then. It's like you're starting your own new discussion.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:23, 09/18/2007
Hmm, WP:TP#Formatting would suggest that I'm using indents correctly. The purpose of indenting is to signify that you're replying to a specific person's comments, and if you're not doing that, you shouldn't use indents at all. Forcing everyone to add an indent any time they add any new comment just crams everything to the right side of the screen. Nonetheless, I'll cut down on using new section headings.--Father Goose 20:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I guess I disagree with the guideline then. :) Thanks for agreeing to cut down on new section headings though.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:00, 09/18/2007

Template:Integrate

Perhaps you could retain its functionality by adding a parameter to template:trivia that allows for a more compact version. Just a thought. Even if you do, though, wait a while first, so people don't revert it out of a salting reflex. It might be more readily embraced if it isn't identified as "a duplicate".--Father Goose 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to add parameters yet. But that might be something to discuss in the future, yes.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:59, 09/19/2007

archiving on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections

Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections is not a user talk page, and will by many visitors be read infrequently or for the first time. Weekly archives are still too much. / edg ☺ ★ 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the only time a thread will get archived is if the thread has been inactive for a week and there are at least 10 remaining threads on the talk page. A minimum of 10 threads will always stay on the talk page. Do we really need more than the 10 most recently-active discussions -- especially considering how large these discussions tend to get?
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:41, 09/19/2007
Sending information away weekly is premature, for the reason stated above. This makes the discussion more difficult for new readers, as well as — uhm, please let me apologize for repeating myself — editors who do not read Talk:Avoid trivia sections as often as the regular posters do.
The setting so if there are only 9 threads the oldest will not be archived does not address this problem. The issue of premature archiving needs to be addressed by the timing of the archive. Many of the threads on that talk pages are short and repetitive; new drive-bys will tend to bump off a recent threads this way. / edg ☺ ★ 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not what the setting means. The setting means that there will never be less than 10 threads on the page (unless someone removes them manually). If there are 15 threads, and 10 of them are old, only 5 will be archived. Nothing active in the last 7 days gets archived, and no mater what, the 10 most recently-active threads stay on the page. Never less. You think the people who neglect to even read the guideline will read more than 10 talk page threads?
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:06, 09/19/2007
I think sensible new visitors will skip over several trivia rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! threads.
I understand what the setting means. I don't think threads should be archived in a week. I think a figure of a few months would be better.
Question: Are you just fighting now? Should I just never say anything to you? Would that be better? / edg ☺ ★ 06:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A few months? Do you have any idea how large the page would get? I've been doing a manual archive every couple of weeks, and this last time archived 127K. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections/Archive 7. No, I'm not "just fighting". I just hate having to wade through miles of conversation that nobody's paid any attention to in the last week to find what I'm looking for. This particular page gets very large very fast and I'm trying to keep it under control, which until now I've done manually. I can just continue to do that if need be.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:13, 09/19/2007

Signature

I'm not complaining or asking you to change it, but I would like to point out that your boxes signature (although recognizable) is quite unreadable to me. I would prefer if you would choose a formatting that involved fewer borders. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's only one box, an outline around the whole thing. I'm not sure how that would keep you from being able to read my signature. Unless the text is too small, but that has nothing to do with the box.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:16, 09/19/2007
I actually did come here to request that you change your signature. It looks OK when viewing a page, but it clutters the page when editing. I noticed the size when your 8 character response [7] showed up as 300 due to the size of your sig. Any chance you could cut it down to a line or two instead of four? Thanks! Chaz Beckett 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand. My signature length was 287 characters, and the usual max employed by Preferences is 255. I've cut mine down to 258. Hope that's sufficient. Cheery-o.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:20, 09/19/2007
You could cut it down to 255 by using "border:#009". You could also consider dropping "contribs"; I wonder how many people need that link right at-hand.--Father Goose 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems people will never be happy :D i said 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah tell me about it... Thanks FG, I cut the color code down. Now no one can (technically) complain. Bwahaha. I'll keep the contribs for now, since I'm already below the max characters.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:14, 09/19/2007
009, not 099, Equazcion. Unless you like that cyan. It's actually not that bad. Maybe you've already decided to keep it.--Father Goose 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't know how you caught that. But actually I'm gonna try the cyan for a while, see how it fits.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:52, 09/20/2007
You need a longer user name, I. :-p --Father Goose 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? i said 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Because no one can refer to you. "I said this and bla bla". Who knows if I'm referring to me or I (you)? See the problem? Did I say it, or did you (I) say it? Who's on first?
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:41, 09/20/2007

←That has nothing to do with the length ^_^ . But I regret this name, and am trying to find a suitable replacement, but all of the good ones are taken by people who made two edits in 2003 or some other nonsense like that. i said 01:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You need a longer user name so we can restore some order to this godforsaken place. Equazcion has made his sig shorter, you must make your name longer. Everyone must conform. Hut hut.
Oh, and Equation, you've misspelled your name.--Father Goose 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Individuality is disorder. Good catch there FG, I should've run it through a spell checker. Oh well. Next time.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:53, 09/20/2007

This might be off topic, but I was just wondering.. if the limit is 255, then how were you able to bypass the sig limit? -- Ned Scott 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By subst'ing a template. There's a no-transclusion rule for signatures, because it would be a drain on the servers to have to go and grab everyones' signatures every time a talk page is loaded, but subst'ing only grabs the template once, at posting time.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:42, 09/20/2007

Goodbye

Im retiring, is that still news? --Alien joe 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Strike

I saw that you created Hollywood film strike (2008). I've been loading up on headlines about the situation via Google Alerts; let me know if you want me to put them on the talk page. I'd suggest a different article title, though... that one doesn't work. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally open to suggestions on the title. I had a hard time coming up with one, and ended up settling. Start a discussion on its talk page if you want to brainstorm it. Yeah, put whatever good info you can up, cause I'm always on the lookout for it, and I don't have quite as detailed a grasp of the situation as I'd like to. And of course feel free to add to the article, it's a fairly slim summation of something that's gonna be pretty gargantuan if it happens. Thanks!
Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:40, 09/21/2007

TFD

Saw your merge suggestion on the TFD for Template:Refimprove. I just wrote this for another question but it speaks to your concerns as well. Just FYI.

Having been deeply involved in the discussion on {{unreferenced}} and having significant conversations about Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles I can tell you that the rationale for including external links (that offer some support for the article, and WP:AGF generally leads to assuming they are supportive) as a reference for the sake of changing to {{refimprove}} is the distinction between "Any" and "Adequately". An article that does not have ANY references, violates most core content policies on Wikipedia. While an article that is not ADEQUATELY referenced just needs improvement. So we work hardest to address the {{unreferenced}} first. For some some time while the discussion was ongoing about "Any" and "Adequately" the {{unreferenced}} was used for both as the language kept changing. Now we have final resolution and thousands of articles that are miss tagged.

There are a number of conversation and conclusion on Template talk:Unreferenced

Thanks for your thoughts Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Thank you for using a less bold signature than what you had used before. The dotted lines and non-bolded text are, to me, a welcome change to the in-your-face sig you had before. Guroadrunner 10:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone finally approves!!!! — i said 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it's about time :) No problem Guroad, I'm glad my sig seems friendlier now.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:45, 09/23/2007

Flag of Jewish Autonomous Oblast

Hello Equazcion, thank you for your recent comments and edits on Talk:Flag of Jewish Autonomous Oblast. I just wanted to share with you my response on the talk page... "As the present article states, the subject has both regional and religious significance. Also, here are a few other articles for Russian Oblast and regional flags. These are listed in Category:Flags of Russia."

Thanks and take care. Culturalrevival 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia proposal shutting down

No one seems to think Wikipedia:Avoid trivia was useful in its current form, so I'm retiring it as an unneeded distraction. At least now I know. Reverting to the old redirect to WP:TRIVIA. / edg ☺ ★ 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. In all seriousness you might want to drop by WP:ROC -- it's somewhat along the lines of what you were trying to do.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:21, 09/24/2007
I've seen it. It's not very useful and doesn't solve anything. I don't think my ideas fit into the Goose's vision, so I don't see myself as being all that helpful. For what it's worth, I made a few suggestions for a previous version of that document; I think the word "scope" is retained, but nothing else worked for him. If he wants to cannibalize any of my attempt, that's great.
Thanks for your help in this. Meant to say that before. / edg ☺ ★ 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I continue to be totally open to criticism of ROC. Any comment along the lines of "this is wrong [because]" or "this is ineffective [because]" I can respond to, and might even agree with. Back when I reverted your near-complete rewrite of what had been at Wikipedia:Relevance, I wasn't rejecting all your ideas -- it's just that they were fairly rudimentary, having been put together in the space of a day. You swore off all involvement with the proposal after that, so it's no surprise it doesn't reflect your ideas.
I agree with Equazcion that a "relevance" guideline (i.e., WP:ROC) could probably address many of the concerns you are raising here. It'd have to be limited to things we can all agree on -- but even those things are likely to be an improvement over the current situation. There is plenty of material even inclusionists would regard as irrelevant -- can we try to work on a common standard for that?--Father Goose 05:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The first thing we would have to agree on would be restoring Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia to WP:NOT. / edg ☺ ★ 14:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that follows. Is this supposed to be a bargaining tactic?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:01, 09/24/2007
Not follows, preceeds. Not a bargaining tactic because it is understood in advance that it will not be considered. / edg ☺ ★ 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that the off-chance that we'd be willing to agree to restore NOT#TRIVIA is the only way you'd consider working on WP:ROC. So it is a bargaining tactic, just not one you're confident will work. I'd say you're correct about the latter part.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:13, 09/24/2007
My opposition to NOT#TRIVIA is totally unconnected to ROC; the focus of WP:NOT is "none of this material is permitted", and that's not true of trivia. But I certainly do advocate a "relevance" guideline as the right means to identify and get rid of irrelevant material in articles. Since we share at least some goals, I don't understand why we can't make progress on them.--Father Goose 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contractions

Thank you for letting me know. I am using AWB for the most part, and don't purposely remove them from quotes or links...but I'm not perfect, and may improperly change a few. I will be more careful in the future to carefully look at all the changes! Ctjf83 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

archiving

I shall have to do it more frequently manually, but I like to keep the current stuff around. I am experimenting with subject archives. Thanks for the offer, however! DGG (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, could use some help in this regard! --Orange Mike 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you sure could :) I set your talk page to archive discussions that have been inactive for 30 days, with an exception to keep at least 15 discussions on the page at all times. I also set up the archive index. The first archive and index should get created automatically within the next 24 hours. If you want any of those settings changed, let me know.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:21, 10/2/2007
¡Muy muchas gracias! But... User talk:Orangemike/Archive1 already exists and isn't in the index. Can anything be done about that? --Orange Mike 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed that by moving the archive to the standard naming convention, with a space before the number. So just so you know, since an archive already exists, when the automatic archiving takes place, that archive will be added to. When that archive reaches 200k (which may even happen today because of the length of your talk page) a new one will get created automatically (Archive 2), and be added to until IT reaches 200k, and so on.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:30, 10/2/2007
Oh and you're welcome :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:31, 10/2/2007

Circumcision should remain manually archived

Hello. If you look at Talk:Circumcision and its history you will see that I have been manually archiving it for a very long time (31 archives). It is not suitable for automatic archiving due to the nature of the debates on the page. Please do not add any archive bots to it in the future. Thank you. -- Avi 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also it was not appropriate for you to remove the controversy tag without discussion as part of that edit. The way, the truth, and the light 01:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the nature of the debate should have to do with autoarchiving, but if you like doing it manually that's fine. The bot settings shouldn't be removed by a simple undo though, because you're also undoing other things, like cleanup and indexer bot settings. In the future, if you don't like a bot and don't know how to remove it other than undoing the edit, please just ask the person who added it to kindly remove it. PS I didn't remove any controversy tags.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:22, 10/3/2007
You're right, you didn't remove any tags. Sorry, I was just confused looking at the diffs; I didn't mean to accuse you of doing it on purpose anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That's alright, no problem.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:41, 10/3/2007

Template:AutoArchivingNotice

Sorry about that. I was hoping I would be able to coerce these messageboxes into appearing correctly while using only <div>s instead of tables, so that we didn't have to keep using {{!}}s everywhere. But it looks like I can't. It should be aligned properly now – – Gurch 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It might be a good idea though to test major redesigns of widely-used templates using your sandbox first. Otherwise you could piss a lot of people off :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:44, 10/3/2007

Thanks!

Haha, apparently I've been approved for VP for over a week, and never noticed...thanks for letting me know! Ctjf83 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:14, 10/4/2007

Argue!

Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue......

(sorry about spamming your talk page. I was looking for something to do and caught sight of you signature. -Icewedge 01:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC) )
That's okay, I sometimes spam it myself for fun.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:51, 10/6/2007

Question

Hey, you seem to know a bit about Wiki, can you tell me how to fix the users boxes on my profile. They are not lined up at all at the top, and need to be straight across...(I can't do anything straight!) LOL, anyway, let me know if you can help. Thanks! Ctjf83 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can do that using a "wiki table". You make those like this:
{| something on line #1| next thing on line #1| yet another thing on line #1
|-
| something on line #2| next thing on line #2
|}
It may seem a bit daunting at first. I can start you off by editing your user page directly if you want. Just let me know.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:07, 10/6/2007
Actually, I just looked at your user page and it looks like the boxes are aligned pretty straight right now. What exactly do you want to change?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:10, 10/6/2007
I've aligned your user boxes with a table. Let me know if that's what you had in mind.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:16, 10/6/2007
Yes, that was very good, I just made it 3 on a row, instead of 4, but thank you very much for showing me! You're awesome!! Ctjf83 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:24, 10/6/2007

Re: boggled

copied from User talk:East718:

Okay... I just spent the past hour hacking your user page, and the only thing I can't figure out is how you managed to get the text to orient backwards even when editing the page. If you feel like letting me in on this, I am really, really curious how you did it. Email me if you don't want to publicize it. Thanks!

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:06, 10/6/2007
I changed my mind, don't tell me yet, I think I'm close.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:25, 10/6/2007
Ok, I'm pretty sure it's a control character for bidirectional text, but I don't know how you entered it. It wasn't entered as an HTML entity, because it not only confuses the wiki, but it also confuses Firefox's "view source" window (source code immediately after the character actually displays backwards in the source window!). It's completely invisible to everything. I can enter my own control character manually as an HTML entity, but it displays when editing the page again, and doesn't confuse the textarea; whereas yours doesn't display anywhere. I can copy and paste the chunk of text to reproduce the effect, but I can't figure out how to create it from scratch. PLEASE clue me in, it takes a lot to intrigue me these days. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:18, 10/6/2007

Haha, I'll let you in on the secret. It's the Unicode left-right override character, 0x2020D. You can represent it in HTML with &#8238;. Have fun! east.718 at 17:45, October 6, 2007

But I tried that, see User:Equazcion/Sandbox4. It works, but it doesn't quite do what happens on your page. In my sandbox page, you can edit the page and see the HTML code and see the &#8238;. It doesn't affect the editing at all. When editing your page, the edit box is affected, and the character code is invisible, even when viewing the source code in Firefox -- and like I said, it even messes up the view source window, making some code display backwards! How come that doesn't happen in my sandbox page?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:44, 10/6/2007
PS, You got rid of the box around your signature. I'm not too happy about that. We boxed-signature people get a lot of guff and need to stick together. Bring back the box, fight the power :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:52, 10/6/2007
You typed in &8238; directly; I copied the invisible LRO character it creates and pasted it directly into the edit window. As for the box, if you're gonna put me in a kimura... east.718 at 05:06, October 7, 2007
Ahhhh, I see... thanks. And that's some stylin' box you got there, keep it up :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:55, 10/7/2007

"Limited accommodation for popularity,"

Why not develop that into an essay? I seems a very good way of wording it. (Btw, you say you are in NYC. Were you at the last meetup in August? DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. An essay's not a bad idea, I might give that a try.
I do live in NYC but I wasn't at the meetup. As much as I enjoy Wikipedia, it's more of a side-hobby-distraction, and not something for which I would attend an event. I'm also not too keen on mixing cyberspace with realspace; I think it would be a creepy letdown to meet people in real life after having only known them online for so long. I'd rather continue to know them just as I imagine them.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:28, 10/7/2007
I fully understand, but I found them on the whole rather friendlier and more interesting than I had imagined based on the limited style of interaction here. And about half the people were less-than-regulars. DGG (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of rollback

You are not rolling back vandalism, you are restoring large swaths of unsourced trivia to the detriment of each and every article you touch. Please stop. Burntsauce 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussions at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections and on your talk page. The consensus is that your edits are disruptive and my rollbacks are supported. Participate in the discussion before you continue to remove these sections again. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:00, 10/9/2007
While I don't necessarily agree with Burntsauce's mass removal of trivia sections, it has generally been agreed on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections that it was not vandalism. Please don't refer to it as such in your edit summaries as it only enflames the situation. Thanks. Chaz Beckett 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm only referring to it as vandalism because it's hard to roll back all these edits with any other rollback function. The vandalism rollback can be accomplished with a single step. I want to make it clear that I don't necessarily consider these edits vandalism -- it would just be very difficult to roll everything back using another function.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:08, 10/9/2007

I believe the rollback was absolutely appropriate, and the characterization of the changes being rolled back as "vandalism" was certainly plausible. I don't think it's generally agreed that "vandalism" is the wrong thing to call Burtsauce's large-scale contentious edits. Wikidemo 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

checkY

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

You improperly used rollback, but I feel you were acting in good-faith. Please do not use mass rollback like that again.

Request handled by: Nishkid64 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the rollback is proper, and I endorse it. There is no good way other than a rollback to get rid of a large-scale improper edit. The block totally pollutes the issue. Which editor made it? Wikidemo 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I was blocked by Alkivar, but I don't think he realized what was going on at the time. It would have been nice to be able to email an admin though; despite the instructions for blocked users, I didn't seem to be able to email Alkivar about the block. Thank you for the support by the way, Wikidemo.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:52, 10/9/2007
What makes you think Alikvar wasn't aware? At the time he blocked you he had already reverted a number of people's attempts to restore pop culture sections and then edit-protected a couple pages to preserve his reversions, called people "idiots" for restoring them, deleted several warnings / complaints on his talk page, and been brought up on AN/I over this. I am pretty close to lobbying for him to be de-sysopped over that. For an admin to block someone he/she is in a content dispute with, is about as straightforward a case there is of abusing admin privileges. Wikidemo 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If what you're saying is true then I'd support your lobby to have him de-opped (I don't know how to start something like that so please proceed if you know how). It certainly was not appropriate for him to block someone that he himself is in a content dispute with -- especially indefinitely!!
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:05, 10/9/2007
I've mentioned it on the AN/I page under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_incivility. I don't know what they do to handle admins who do this, but whatever it is, I've let them know.Wikidemo 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that and voiced my support there. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:28, 10/9/2007
Wow! User:Neil, one of the admins involved in supporting the mass deletions, just blocked me without warning, though to his credit he unblocked me shortly thereafter. Things are getting kind of crazy. Wikidemo 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I must've missed this comment at the time because I just noticed it. Sorry I didn't respond then. Yes, this is rather nuts.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:56, 10/11/2007

Using rollback and ignoring WP:V

This is not acceptable. You were just blocked for it, and got let off. Do not do it again. Neil ム 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for you. And the default version will be that which does not violate WP:V. This is not a content dispute. Neil ム 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Do whatever you want, admin man. I'm done.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:11, 10/9/2007

WP:TRIVIA

If "no one's disagreeing with me", why on earth did you revert the edit? Perhaps you need to start at the beginning. Read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Be bold!. There's no need to revert edits if everyone agrees. Neil ム 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say everyone agrees. I said no one is disagreeing.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:29, 10/9/2007
Semantics. Neil ム 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:34, 10/9/2007
Also, rather than revert because something is being discussed, have a good reason to revert someone's changes, please, if there has been no disagreement and much agreement. Right now it kinda looks like you're being stubborn ([8]). Another useful page for you to read could be WP:OWN. Neil ム 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You're being pretty stubborn yourself. I really can't believe you're an admin. If you had any interest at all in resolving this objectively rather than imposing your viewpoint you would be acting very differently. I'm trying to keep things peaceful, and you're talking down to me and continuing revert wars. Thanks man. Stellar example of a cool head in the face of conflict.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:45, 10/9/2007
There's no conflict. Neil ム 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:53, 10/9/2007
Please stop reverting. This is not a change in the guideline. All information must adhere to Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. That is not up for debate. Exactly what do you disagree with? Chaz Beckett 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding. But asking nicely doesn't seem to accomplish much now does it. Well then go ahead, please do what you like.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:45, 10/9/2007
I just can't see how it's in any way a controversial addition. It's just a reminder that Wikipedia policy applies to trivia. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary to have to include such a reminder, but it's become apparent that it is. Chaz Beckett 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, that's great, please go add it again then and stop bothering me.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:03, 10/9/2007

Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration

Dear Equazcion/Archive 1, you have been listed as a party in an arbitration request. Please click here for the request. Regards, nattang 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Since you started me an archive, is there a way to set it up, so when i delete something on my talk page, it automatically goes to the archive? You want to do it for me? lol...and can you respond on my talk page, not this one. Ctjf83 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

cut and paste is more work than i want to spend on archiving....so u wanna set it up automatically...i dunno, every 3-4 days...but can i make it keep specific things on the talk page? Ctjf83 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
oh, if i feel like it, i'll just cut and paste...unless u wanna be my personal archiver, lmfao! Ctjf83 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that's ok, just make it so it keeps the top one - "Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!"...well just the top box, the stuff below "SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)" can be achieved and also, where it says "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here." the here is red, so i dunno if u need to link that to my achieve page or what Ctjf83 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if ur still workin on it...but the LGBT thing and the bot thing overlap each other...at least on my screen Ctjf83 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna be a picky pain in the butt...is it possible to make the LGBT thing farther left, so it can be on the same line as the bot thing Ctjf83 02:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes..but i decided i'm gonna move it to my user page..that way i dont have to worry about it getting accidentally archived...also, if i wanna change it to more or less than 3 days, how do i? Ctjf83 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

actually can u do that for me? i guess i don't know which is that, and which is the bot...can u put it under all the userboxes? Ctjf83 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, once again! I'm sure I'll be bugging you soon for more help in the near future! Till then..... Ctjf83 02:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin user pages

Regarding [9], many admins, myself included, protect their own user pages. This is a common and accepted practice and used to be specifically mentioned in WP:PROT. (It is still mentioned at Wikipedia:User_page#Use_of_page_protection_for_user_pages.) The reason for it is simple - there's no reason anyone should have to waste their time reverting vandalism to my user page and when left unprotected, admin user pages are frequent vandalism targets. --B 05:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I might accept that, but how about deleting history revisions of that vandalism, so that no one can even see the rationale for protection? Since when do we delete revisions that contain vandalism?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:11, 10/10/2007
If the vandalism contained personal details or libel, it's deleted or oversighted from anywhere on request. But also keep in mind that we're talking about a user page here. Under CSD U1, you have the right to have your user page deleted on demand. So there's certainly no problem with an admin deleting or purging history from their own user page. --B 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure if I agree that one follows from the other. It's one thing to completely delete a page; it's another to selectively remove things from its history and leave only the parts you like. Ordinary editors sure can't do that; should an editor be allowed that privilege for his own user page because he incidentally happens to be an admin? Plus, there is no claim in any of his edit summaries that the vandalism revealed personal information. He just claimed it was vandalism.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:24, 10/10/2007
If you would like the history of your user page purged, all you have to do is ask. It's not a privilege reserved only for admins. The only requirement is that, for GFDL purposes, if someone else has made contributions to your user page that are still a part of the current page that they cannot be excised from the history since the GFDL requires contributors to be noted. --B 05:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Purged completely, but not selectively altered. Show me where we can see a list of all revisions and let us pick and choose which versions we want deleted, and then I'll say you have a point. Otherwise, this is an abuse of privileges.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:35, 10/10/2007
You can't do it yourself only because you don't have access to the interface ... but if you would like for specific revisions to be purged from your userpage (other than simply for the sake of doing it), I or any other admin can do it for you. Just give the timestamps you want removed. --B 05:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you would do that for me as a result of this discussion, but I doubt most admins would perform such a service for simple cases of vandalism. They'd want rationale involving the revealing of personal information.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:41, 10/10/2007
Alkivar's above referenced revert of Betacommand still counts as wheel warring, although it's a minor instance of it, IMO.--Father Goose 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What reference are you talking about? Sorry, confused...
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:30, 10/10/2007
This, which you brought up on the RFAR, is wheel warring.--Father Goose 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Editor - platinum star2.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Editor - platinum star2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:11, 10/10/2007

You sure the image not displaying isnt just you, cause i can see it on all the pages its on.Blacksmith talk 06:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a possibility, although you could be seeing the new image I uploaded, as I replaced all the image references in the template code to point to the new one already.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:27, 10/10/2007
It appears to only be a problem with firefox, at least on my computer. When I try in IE the picture does display. Very odd... I wonder if anyone else is experiencing this.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:46, 10/10/2007

Thanks

My home page has again been attacked by a sockpuppet, thanks for reverting the attack.

Have a Good day!

FWIW Bzuk 06:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC).

My pleasure. Thanks for the cookie :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:28, 10/10/2007

Edit War on Herbert Dingle Page

Please keep an eye on the Herbert Dingle Page. There is a vandal by the name of DVdm who won't leave this page alone. He is posing as a responsible and regular wikipedia editor but he has a specific purpose of removing any kind of contributions that might in any way cast a shadow of doubt over Einstein's theories.

Herbert Dingle was an established scientist in the 1960's who challenged Einstein's theories. DVdm wants to water down this piece of history by removing references to the controversy and beefing the article up with biographical details.

Keep an eye on DVdm. I suspect that he uses sockpupets, perhaps Denveron and other IP adresses. (Brigadier Armstrong 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

DVdm is posing as the good guy and trying to make out that other editors that are trying to present a balanced article, are actually the vandals.

Table of Contents

Is this soon enough for another question? LOL...How do i add a table of contents list to the page? I think this page would do good with one. Ctjf83 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you once again! Ctjf83 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
do you think this page needs a TOC or is it too short to warrant putting each bolded section as like 2.1, 2.2, etc Ctjf83 18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
can u view the page now, and see if there is a way to make the text wrap around the TOC at the top Ctjf83 18:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
ok..it just looked like way too much white at the top Ctjf83 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle

Copied from user talk:EliminatorJR:

Don't say "guess what", please. It's rather sarcastic in tone and annoying. I didn't even add the statement you removed or care that you did, in fact I would've removed it myself. But please try to be a little more civil about it. It'll help people accept your edits rather than become inclined to war with you. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:50, 10/10/2007

Er, that comment wasn't aimed at you, but to the anon who restored the paragraph after it was removed earlier today (diff [10]). And frankly, I don't think it's that incivil after a previous warning. "Stop inserting original research, you moron" would be incivil ;) ELIMINATORJR 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware it wasn't aimed at me. It was uncivil, and just because it was less uncivil than a comment that came before it doesn't detract from the incivility. I was tempted to revert you just because of the disgusting way that edit summary sounded, without even looking at what you did. Not that I would actually do that, but just letting you know the affect of your tone.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:00, 10/10/2007
Reverting a valid edit with a summary that slightly offends your sensibilities is not a good idea, IMHO. If we all did that, we'd all be blocked for 3RR within a day. ELIMINATORJR 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd strongly advise you against doing this, as it would be disruptive and unhelpful. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you know that was not my point.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:28, 10/10/2007

Service Awards Question

I started at Wikipedia on August 19th, 2006 as User:Orangemonster2k1, but due to a user who was constantly bothering me, I made the decision to "retire" User:Orangemonster2k1 on May 16th, 2007 and move to my current User:Neutralhomer, an account I created on May 3rd, 2007. A decision I didn't want to do (the user who was bothering me found me anyway).

So, my question is, would it be possible (since I have been here about a year and a half) to be in the "Experienced & Established editors" category, or something lower....lower is OK, I just want to be certain before adding my name. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's possible... you can add yourself to whatever categories you want, as I don't think there are any policies governing that sort of thing. Riana and DarkFalls don't officially meet the criteria for master editor, but have added themselves to that category regardless. If you're asking if I would have a problem with you combining your contribs from your previous account with your current one to say that you officially qualify for an award, then no, I wouldn't mind that. These are simply notices to the public of the extent of your experience with Wikipedia, so you should choose a category that accurately reflects that, no matter which user accounts your experience occurred under.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:49, 10/11/2007
Okie Dokie, that works :) Now I just have to figure out how to put the ribbon on my userpage :) Take Care and Have a Good Thursday....NeutralHomer T:C 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:56, 10/11/2007

If it was that obvious, you certainly could have posted it yourself. / edg ☺ ★ 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If what was obvious?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:28, 10/13/2007
Right on queue, ed, I was waiting for that.[11] / edg ☺ ★ 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well as I stated in my comment, I don't agree that this case qualifies the way Mangojuice has suggested, so why would I? Just because it was obvious that you would say something doesn't mean I would say it for you.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:35, 10/13/2007
I think I get it. It's obvious that I would say something wrong, where as you would not post such a comment because you know better. Thanks for explaining this to me, and for using short words. / edg ☺ ★ 07:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't say something that I think is wrong, even though I know that other people who think it's right would say it. And you're welcome, anytime.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:07, 10/13/2007
friends, don't we have sufficient difficulties discussing the issue? As personal disagreements go, this seems somewhat--how shall I say it -- trivial? :) DGG (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:18, 10/14/2007

Transcribed for User talk:Xoloz:

No consensus???

I was rather shocked by this. "Edit count is insignificant in determining the "value" of any Wikipedia[n]"? Is that from any policy? Who even said these awards have anything to do with determining value? The Keep !votes outweigh the delete !votes by a landslide, and not one delete !vote cited any policy. As far as deletion discussions go, the consensus was Keep, and I suspect you may have a personal feeling on the subject that might be interfering here.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:30, 10/15/2007

Reply

Hi,

As you may be aware, the practical difference between a keep and no consensus is minimal. Weighing the arguments and the flow of the debate lead me to my conclusion: XfDs are not votes, so the "landslide" margin to which you referred is only a bit relevant (and I saw no landslide in any event.) The no consensus closure was also motivated by the opinion, expressed by several "keep" commenters, that it would be right to consider all "service awards" together, not one in isolation. Just as XfDs are not votes, so too it is true that one must look beyond the boldfacing.

Regarding your other point, I hope you do not intend to dispute the view that all good-faith editors are equally valuable. This is indisputably a presupposition of any wiki. For reference, see WP:INTRO, Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Harmonious editing, or any policy page dealing with user conduct, really. All editors, including admins, are fundamentally equal: more experienced editors are somewhat more likely to be well-equipped for certain tasks; but, it is ultimately the merit of one's edits, or arguments, that determines one's reputation here -- not any edit count. Those merits being subjective, it is impossible for anyone to declare one good-faith editor "better" than another. Vandals, of course, are different, though Wikipedia always hopes for their reform.

If you dispute this contention, you're in a pickle: I have more than twice as many edits as you do, so by the edit count makes right philosophy to which you would appear to subscribe, I am obviously more knowledgeable than you are! ;) Indeed, I agree that I am more correct on this point, not because of my edit count, which would be absurd; but, because of the fundamental justice of an argument for equality among editors. :)

As to your subtle suggestion of my bias -- I had no foreknowledge of the existence of these awards, or of the MfD. I closed the matter because its time was completed, and its result apparent. I did apply my judgment, as policy calls for, but I have no stake in the debate other than the upholding of Wikipedia's principles. Your own agitation at this result, as you choose to impugn an outcome with practically the same effect as the one you desired, suggests that you are far from impartial here, and hardly in a position to be questioning the motives of others, absent any evidence. You would seem to be too attached to these little awards, a misfortune warned of by those who favored deletion. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a military campaign. Editors are not here to garner ribbons, but to share verifiable knowledge with the world freely. As these ribbons don't burden that mission, they may exist; should they ever begin to burden it, then they would be eradicated. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't consider myself as having any particular "attachment" to these awards. You are right when you say I'm not impartial, though, for the obvious reasons that I've worked on them and have one posted. I don't claim to be impartial, and generally wouldn't make such a claim for a deletion discussion that I participated in myself. However, that should not bar anyone from making the suggestion that a closing admin didn't act impartially.
Addressing the bulk of your response, I have not, and do not plan to, put forth the argument that one editor is necessarily more valuable than another simply due to their edit count. If these awards existed to make such a judgment, I would be on the side of delete or at least rework. But as I stated in my comment to you, the very notion that these awards aim to classify users by their value is fabricated. As WP:SERVICE states, these awards are merely representative of how much experience an editor has here -- the same (as is similarly stated) as the "years of service" bars on a uniform.
You see, my problem with your closing statement is not so much that you're trying to impose your own opinion on the matter, ie, that you have some agenda. My problem is that you've added added your own assumption about the awards in the closing statement. You appear to have summed up what they are and what they represent according to your own opinion, which doesn't appear to agree even with the page describing the awards -- let alone with a significant portion of the !voting body of editors.
I think you also are hesitant to conclude a Keep because in actuality the nomination was for the wrong page. You feel that any nomination should have gone to the WP:SERVICE page and not to a specific award, and you don't want to prejudice any future nomination for that page by closing as Keep for one specific award, lest it be brought up as precedent. This would be a legitimate concern and I wholeheartedly agree. However you shouldn't be (in my opinion) afraid to say something along those lines in your closing statement. You could simply say that this is just one award in a hierarchy, the nominator and the Delete !voters seem to have issue with that hierarchy as a whole, and therefore you're closing this debate with no result and no prejudice (which is what I think you really mean by "no consensus"). I just find it disheartening to see the words "no consensus" when on the contrary there seems to be a clear consensus, even if the nomination was ill-conceived to begin with.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:05, 10/15/2007
The final sentence of my closing did, in fact, suggest that a more general discussion of these service awards would be in order. I felt no need to make that sentiment any more plain, because I have no wish to imply that such a discussion is necessary, only that it is a logical extension of the nomination just closed, and the next appropriate step should anyone oppose the result.
You are correct regarding one of my working assumptions, but you misapprehend why I adopted that assumption. It is true that I chose to give less weight to the view that "these awards are indications of edit count, nothing more." While I was aware that several commenters disputed that point, I feel it undeniable that the award (whatever its stated intentions) might lend itself to the mistaken belief that it conferred some sort of esteem. Remember, we are discussing a badge called "Master editor" -- irrespective of the (presumably laudable) intent of its makers, I think everyone must accept that such language carries a certain "sound of authority." It is open question whether that was intended, or is the general impression conveyed. It is obvious that such a misinterpretation is possible, and is more likely among new users. In that sense, when closing, I judged those making your argument (ie., "read the page -- it says the badge is merely an indicator of a fact, a certain level of experience") less credible than your adversaries. This is not a bias on my part; but rather, a weighing of the arguments given. I don't really think anyone can reasonably dispute that, even seen in a favorable light, the service awards are possible to misinterpret as signs of authority, even if (as you say) they were never intended as such. My working assumption stemmed from my analysis of the arguments given, and was not a priori in any form. You may disagree with my judgment; but, I believe it to be within the parameters of administrative discretion to weigh the strength of the arguments. As I said initially in the second sentence of my first reply to you, "Weighing the arguments... lead me to my conclusion" that a "no consensus" result (rather than a "keep") had been reached. Sometimes, the "numbers" do not lead directly to the result, and such was the case here. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Then in light of this, I have a request. You say that you feel the wording of these awards make them too open to the misinterpretation of conveying the value of the editor. I feel that this should be clarified in your closing statement, because right now it says, "Edit count is insignificant in determining the 'value' of any Wikipedia[n]," which sounds to me like you've made that misjudgment yourself, even though I realize now that you haven't. If instead you just feel that it's a likely misconception, could you edit the statement to reflect that? Although I do agree that especially among new users the significant potential for such a misconception exists, my concern is that the current statement only serves to perpetuate that misconception.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:23, 10/15/2007
I'll think about that. For clarity, I should mention another working assumption that I employ in writing all my closures. I write them to explain to people who might oppose the result why my judgment is correct. I do not assume that someone in your position (who does not object to the result, only the semantics) is my primary audience in writing closures. I suppose this additional assumption (regarding the audience for which the closure is written) arises from my understanding of the spirit of consensus -- my objective is to bring as many folks as possible "on-board" with the result. While I appreciate your desire for an explication of my reasoning at the MfD, my assumption has its merits also: I don't want to lose that "appeal to the opposition" conciliatory tone.
The two things I can add that might make you feel better are: 1) while my closure elaborates my thoughts, the words aren't binding. (In fact, in any "no consensus" result, nothing is binding -- notwithstanding the incredibly weak strength of precedent in Wikipedia generally anyway); 2) I will gladly annotate my closing with a link to our discussion here, as a further elaboration of my thought process in making the close. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The addition of a link to this discussion would be very helpful. I was thinking though that it could be summed up fairly well -- for instance, where you say "Edit count is insignificant in determining the 'value' of any Wikipedia[n]..." you could change that to, "It is reasonable to assume that many editors may perceive this award as a determination of value, regardless of whether or not this is the intent, and that alone may be reason to discuss all such awards further." But either the link, the change, or both would be appreciated. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:52, 10/15/2007
You are quite right that your phrasing is excellent: I won't claim it for my closure, though it be accurate. Those who would care enough to click the link for elaboration will see that you have expressed myself better than I did. :) (Also, I added your original query above to this thread, to keep the conversation whole for those who might read it.) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks for addressing my concerns, you've been most reasonable.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:00, 10/15/2007
No! No! Keep fighting! Nooooooo!--Beta XII-A entity 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That, sir, is extraordinarily impressive reference that I am ashamed to admit I did not immediately recognize. As punishment, I will re-view the entire third season DVD this week, watching the dreadful Spock's Brain for the 68th time. Live long and prosper, Xoloz 12:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD on the same issue

Hi,

Although I can understand your frustration at having to defend the same general concept in different fora, categories do serve a purpose distinct from the awards themselves, and are subject to different standards (as I see you and Black Falcon have already discussed at the CfD.) Even if one assumes that the awards themselves are useful, it is not immediately clear why categories would be so. (For what purpose would an editor wish to find others of the same rank? To collaborate exclusively with such editors?? That's a bad thing, obviously.) Many userboxes otherwise permitted have had associated categories disallowed, because finding those who display it could serve no useful purpose (and might serve a counterproductive one: clique-ish behavior.) Best wishes, Xoloz 12:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

Can you put "Image:Rainbowghost.jpg" with "Happy Halloween" as the caption on my user page below the quote but above the userboxes. I tried, but the pic was overlapping the user boxes...since you're so good at this kinda stuff! Ctjf83 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, as always...what would I do without you?? Nice touch with the orange letters on the blk background! Ctjf83 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]

Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one who started WikiTrivia. I saw your comment there about using this local project as a pointer to the meta project -- If that's possible then I'd be all for it, but I have doubts that a WikiProject would be allowed to exist merely to make people aware of a project outside of Wikipedia, and not actually affecting Wikipedia articles in any direct way. If you have any further thoughts on that though, please let me know. Oh and if you haven't officially joined the WikiTrivia proposal yet, don't forget to sign here.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:03, 10/17/2007
I've gone hog-wild and created the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. I wonder if this'll work.--Father Goose 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
FG the anarchist. This should be very interesting.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:32, 10/17/2007
Did you tell DGG?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:36, 10/17/2007

Re: Watchlist

Haha, sorry about that. east.718 at 12:11, 10/18/2007

That's okay, I just found it quite humorous :)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:12, 10/18/2007

Image deletion

I've removed your speedy-delete tag from Image:Woman masturbating.jpg. Since the image is hosted on Commons, not on the English Wikipedia, nobody here can delete it. If you want it deleted, you'll have to go to Commons and use their deletion processes. --Carnildo 05:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay I didn't know that. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:54, 10/19/2007

An issue of relevance

National Maritime Museum has a controversy regarding the relevance of discussing the propriety of exhibits taken from Germany after WWII. Since you are interested in relevance, I thought this might find this interesting. --Kevin Murray 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

The Brooklyn Bridge New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area
Last: 8/12/2007
This box: view • talk • edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Equazcion! 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. βcommand 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In response to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/Wikipedia Users' Alliance...

We never said that we where a wiki project group..the site says that we are trying to become on,,, and as for a club house...excuse me? --Greenwood1010 03:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the middle of the page: "This is a WikiProject, a collaboration area and open group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of a particular topic, or to organizing some internal Wikipedia process." Regardless, the page seems unnecessary and yes it does seem like a kind of clubhouse. Please participate in the deletion discussion, as that way your comments will have a chance at affecting the decision. Commenting on my talk page won't do you much good. Let me know if you have any questions about how the process works though, as there seems to be some confusion there.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:11, 10/21/2007
What didn't you understand? --Gp75motorsports 03:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't understand your question. Feel free to ask it again here though.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:50, 10/21/2007

Sorry

Look I said that I believed that some of the opposers where vandels, but I also was sure to state that I ==had no proof of this== i am sorry if you where upset...it's just that i am getting...upset. it saddens me to know that the wua will most likely be deleted and will not get to become an officla group...again sorry:(--Greenwood1010 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying you have no proof doesn't take away from the bad faith of your comment. I wasn't insulted myself; I was informing you of what a bad idea a comment like that is, especially when you're trying to defend your page in a deletion discussion. I understand that you're upset, and I'm sorry the page is getting deleted, but hopefully in the future you'll understand why that had to happen.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:34, 10/22/2007

I was wondering if you knew about the other groups...ones like our's that failed...do you have the links?--Greenwood1010 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if they failed then there probably wouldn't be links. I don't know of any offhand... you might want to try Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, but that's generally for proposed rules that got rejected, not failed wikiprojects. I saw you posted the same request at the deletion discussion, so someone there might be of more help.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:34, 10/22/2007

Wikipedia Users' Alliance October 17, 2007-October 22, 2007

Dear Friend, the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance has been deleted. I am sure that perhaps you already knew this. I myself just found out. Anyhow during the debate many mean and rude things where said. I am not innocent myself; I too contributed to the unpleasantness. But now Wikipedia Users’ Alliance is dead, gone forever. But we all must move on, for me and my friends, we have to deal with this loss. However it is important that all of us work together to fight vandalism and not argue with one another. There are many things that I want to say, but I know that they would only add to the mean sprit that fills the “air”. As a Buddhist (Risshō Kōsei Kai) I was reading the Holy Dhammapada yesterday. I came across this line, “Holding onto anger is like holding on to a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone, in the end you are the one who gets burned,” how true! Lets us progress forward. WUA Founder User: King of Nepal has expressed similar views such as these to me via e-mail. His majesty said, “We have to move on, move forward. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and us all.” I agree and hope that you do to. Thanks. --Greenwood1010 12:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Co-founder of the WUA. If you feel that you recived this message in error please let me know.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence

This is just a notice that I mentioned you in my Evidence post in case you wish to rebut or dispute what I've written.--Isotope23 talk 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WT:UCFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Quit it. Please read the various discussions we've already had. As I said in my edit summary, it has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and we now just want to drop it and move on. Please don't beat make an issue out of it. – Steel 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll read the various discussions. In the meantime please don't delete this one. And, if I feel it's necessary, I'll make an issue out of whatever the hell I damn well please. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:08, 10/24/2007
That's enough. You are going against a consensus of... well, everyone re-opening that. Take a 24 hour wikibreak. – Steel 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Consensus of everyone, meaning you and another admin, on the point of closing a discussion that questions admin actions? I would think in the interest of avoiding the implication of vested interest that you'd want to keep that discussion open.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:35, 10/24/2007
Consensus meaning me and everyone else who has commented on the issue today which is several people, including the original non-admin complainant. This was discussed earlier and, I repeat, has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Except yours, it seems. – Steel 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, except mine. Your point being?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:39, 10/24/2007
Still waiting. If my concerns haven't been assuaged yet, should I not be allowed to discuss them? Since when do we close discussions because only one person is left who is concerned?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:51, 10/24/2007

Add WP:3RR to the block reason: [12] [13] [14] [15]. – Steel 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Two of those weren't reverts of the same edit. They were additions of a response to the discussion. I'd also still like an answer: If my concerns haven't been assuaged yet, should I not be allowed to discuss them? Since when do we close discussions because only one person is left who is concerned?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:58, 10/24/2007
It doesn't matter that they didn't revert the same edit; they were reverts and that's what matters. WP:3RR is pretty clear on that.
Regardless, there's not a whole lot I can say without repeating myself. We operate on consensus. The consensus amongst both admins and Allstarecho [16] was that the issue was best dropped and the people involved were best moving on. You were going against that agreement, disruptively. – Steel 00:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Show me a policy that says admins are allowed to deem discussions "closed", even with "consensus". I've never heard of a policy like this. Discussions go on for as long as there's someone who has something to say.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:18, 10/25/2007

Unblock

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

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

Request reason:

No block notice, no warning, no reason given for block.

Decline reason:

Everything you asked for has been provided. There is no need for policy on closing a discussion; it is standard procedure for admins to close when discussions go nowhere or are only aggravating situations. — Kurykh 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Warning here, block notice here, reason given here. – Steel 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was un-closing a discussion. If there is a policy that allows admins to close discussions, as well as a policy that says that re-opening them if you have a response is cosnidered "disruptive", please show it to me.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:42, 10/24/2007
More to the point; you were being phenomenally disruptive. In fact, disrupting WP to prove a point - Alison ❤ 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to prove a point by nominating things for deletion or editing an article. I was trying to prove a point by discussing it. That's not what WP:POINT covers.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:12, 10/25/2007
"Take a 24-hour wikibreak" is hardly notice. It sounds more like a snide and sarcastic suggestion to me. There are block templates. Pleas use them and state a clear reason.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:43, 10/24/2007
WP:DTTR - Alison ❤ 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What's you point? This still doesn't qualify as notice. I had no idea I was blocked until I tried to edit again.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:11, 10/25/2007
"Quit it. Please read the various discussions we've already had. As I said in my edit summary, it has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and we now just want to drop it and move on. Please don't beat make an issue out of it." -- This should have been my warning that a block was imminent??
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:47, 10/24/2007
You went way over 3RR for one. You know this. So you were edit-warring on closing a discussion that was well and truly over, you were being disruptive in doing so. The 3RR violation is more than enough to warrant a block, IMO. However, as I closed the discussion once, I won't formally review your block here - Alison ❤ 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Who gets to decide when discussions are "over"? Please show me a policy on this. Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:14, 10/25/2007
This is ridiculously disgusting. I can't even begin to express my outrage. I was just trying to discuss something and I get blocked because other people don't want the discussion to continue. Even if everyone aside from me didn't want the discussion to continue, I still have the right to continue discussing something that's relevant to the page. The "warning", "notice" and "reason" are all ridiculous and pathetic. If this block is something that all other admins condone then I'm saying my permanent goodbye to Wikipedia right here.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:09, 10/25/2007
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Come back soon

Equazcion, you're understandably upset. It looks like yet another bad block by admins protecting their turf. However, you did get hot on the issue and you did appear to break 3RR, which isn't the best way to deal with things. Sometimes it is best to take your fingers off the keys for a while and ask yourself it any of this is worth all the wikistress. Category deletion is such an obscure subject. Choose your battles and save your energies for the things that count more. Keep in mind that the main thing around here is to write and improve articles, and that the petty day to day matters of running the encyclopedia, while they do have a cumulative impact on things, aren't really what it's all about. Getting into fights with wiki-gnoming admins is like getting into a fight with a meter attendant. You won't win and you'll have to pay the ticket whatever you say. Forget the meter, enjoy the road!

Some day we'll take Wikipedia back from the admins. I'm probably going to float a proposal to that effect soon if I don't see it in perennial proposals. I might also create a category and a user box for formerly blocked Wikipedians. It will be a badge of distinction, like being in jail during the French Revolution. We'll see how long that one lasts before it's nominated for deletion :) Wikidemo 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't break 3RR. Two of those times, I continued the discussion, which required either restoring the deleted comments or removing the closing template. Take a look at the diffs. That's not reversion; it's continuing a discussion. Don't kid yourself: I was blocked because I disagreed with an admin.
As long as children are our governing body, I'm not coming back. Then again, I'm so furious right now that I can't see straight, so it's possible I'm speaking out of anger. I've already deleted my watchlist though and I don't think that's recoverable; having had about 700 pages in it, it'll be too overwhelming to start over. I hope you're successful in your endeavors. There need to be some serious changes around here and from what I've seen you're probably the guy to do it. Good luck and thanks for the support.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:57, 10/25/2007
Forgive me, I said you seemed to break 3RR but I lack the stamina to really investigate to that level. Police are children too for the most part, and militants, and soldiers. Wikipedia gives people with some writing skills, or at least some keyboard pushing skills, a place where they can be important even if powerless in real life. Some of the most prominent Wikipedians are students, or unemployed, or low level functionaries, or without real world credentials or power. They need to stretch their young legs but we can't let admins run everything. A break and clearing out your watchlist might be a good thing in the long run. Also, most people at some time move on from any online hobby. 6-12 months is a typical tenure for anybody doing anything online at one place. Nobody said this is the end all. It's not even clear how long Wikipedia will last. And there are plenty of things to do in life beyond Wikipedia, even good collaborative encyclopedic content things. If you come back, welcome. If not, happy trails. Wikidemo 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I could write a program to reconstruct your watchlist by sifting through your contribution history. Wouldn't be hard at all.
Know that you are the person I most value of anyone I have known on Wikipedia. I can understand why you would be outraged by the treatment you received in the past few hours, but I hope that with a little time to think over things, you will realize that a few improper actions by admins is not a good reason to abandon your friends here, or the good work you do.
If need be, with your assistance, I'd be willing to initiate an arbitration request. But perhaps it would be sufficient to just talk to the parties involved and see if some reconsideration and apologies can be secured. I've enabled my e-mail in case you would prefer to contact me off-site.--Father Goose 08:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Could someone please do me a favor and replace my user page with a redirect to here? I would do it myself but the block prevents me from editing anything but this talk page. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:13, 10/25/2007
Sure thing, got it done. SQLQuery me! 01:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:18, 10/25/2007

About this block

Hi,

I'm not going to suggest that the block was unjustified, because you did violate 3RR. However, your concern regarding the discussion was not unsound. Next time (and I do hope you'll return, as I've found you a delightfully reasonable person), if an admin closes a discussion which you feel is not over, just raise the relevant point in a new discussion immediately below (or elsewhere, like a talk page, if you meet substantial resistance.) There are ways to pursue the discussion without edit-warring, which is needlessly disruptive. The closure of one discussion does not prevent you from pursuing the topic elsewhere, if you have something meritorious to say. If nothing else, I invite you to "vent" at my talk page anytime. If I think you've got a good point, I'll join you in raising it at the relevant policy page. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that I did not violate 3RR. Even if I did in a purely technical sense, 3RR doesn't, or shouldn't, apply to talk pages. It's meant to keep editors from warring over article or policy contents -- not to settle disputes on whether or not a discussion should continue.
As for this whole discussion-closing "practice", that's something that, although its use is common, is something that should require a policy backing it up. Talk pages are open discussions, and if admins are going to claim a right to close them, there needs to be a policy in place detailing that right, in which scenarios it is appropriate, and the possible consequences of another editor re-opening it. And certainly, without a policy in place, a user shouldn't be blocked for re-opening that discussion when no policy exists governing this practice.
Steel happened to come up with the 3RR reason as an afterthought, because he (and Alison) couldn't argue with me on the original reason for the block, which was some convoluted perversion of WP:POINT that didn't make any sense. Even assuming 3RR applies to the re-opening of a talk page discussion (which currently is anything but clear), the fact is that I was blocked for saying things an admin didn't like.
Look at the archived discussion under the first heading. I was ordered to stop making an issue out of something. While I might accept a polite request to drop a point, given a good reason, this was not a polite request. This was an order, and according to Steel afterwards, it was in fact a warning that I would be blocked if I didn't comply -- which is neither something that I should reasonably have assumed was a block warning, nor was it a valid reason to threaten a block (notice he didn't warn me about approaching my 3RR limit).
I will not participate in a system where an admin can use his tools when he gets into a dispute with an editor, and then count on other admins to back him up. We have a word for that out in the real world: corruption. I might be able to accept an occasional emotional slip-up that gets corrected by another admin outside the situation. But here, other admins defended this one's actions, including the original WP:POINT reason and the 3RR excuse that came later. It would've even been acceptable if they admitted the WP:POINT reasoning was erroneous but that the block must stand due to 3RR -- but they didn't even do that.
Food for thought: Had this so-called edit war occurred between two ordinary editors, with an admin watching, one of two things would've happened: either both editors would've been temporarily blocked, or neither would have. Not just the one restoring the conversation. If you want to say the difference here is that an admin said the discussion was closed, then I say to you that such a statement has very powerful implications. The power to end a discussion is something that should not be given lightly. Wikipedia runs on discussion, and if someone is to be told they can close discussions, there need to be some rules laid out to ensure the fair and correct usage of such a power.
Again I appreciate the support. Thank to FG also -- and in response to your suggestions, an apology would not help in this case. This system currently allows for the kind of aggravation I've experienced, and I simply don't want to participate in it any further. I appreciate the offer nonetheless. Take care, everyone.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:27, 10/25/2007
You should not have been reverting on a talk page in the first place. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What was he reverting?--Father Goose 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It's standard practice to revert unwarranted removals of talk page content or closures of discussion, and is considered abuse by some for administrators to back up with user blocks or page protection their attempts to silence discussion in this way. Wikidemo 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest, when your block ends (quite soon) that you try to address this through policy change and clarification? You obviously feel that there are flaws in existing policy and, rather than just leaving, would it not be better to stick around and try to make useful changes? Some of the points you have made are quite valid, I feel - Alison ❤ 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Alison, I really can't talk to you without saying something unkind, so I'm just not going to answer you.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:40, 10/25/2007
Sorry to hear it. However, should you wish further recourse on this one, your first option would be to bring this to WP:ANI to discuss the matter. Note that I was not acting in admin capacity (tho' I am one) throughout this matter. I explicitly did not review your block for that very reason. Anyways ... - Alison ❤ 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you weren't acting in administrative capacity in closing the discussion, then Equazcion's first and second reversions to reopen the discussion were justified, weren't they? If not so, why not, may I ask? Best wishes, Xoloz 22:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, no they weren't, because he was clearly going against consensus and was clearly being disruptive. Thus no, not justified. Simple as that. I personally don't have issues with non-admins closing certain discussions and that's certainly not my issue here - Alison ❤ 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
See this is why the lack of a policy is a major issue here. From my point of view, closing off a discussion and telling everyone that they are no longer allowed to respond to it is the disruptive action. I was correcting Steel and Alison's disruptive actions. So which one of us is right?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:30, 10/25/2007
Well, yes, there is obviously a lack of clarity regarding policy. I've already stated that (BTW, are you addressing me now or just referring to me while addressing the room?). However, you were revert-warring and being disruptive on a discussion that was very much dead and that's hardly the means to addressing this - Alison ❤ 23:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What was the means to address this, then? You're talking about revert-warring as if it were an article or policy page. We're talking about a discussion. I was trying to discuss, and someone was not allowing me to. Resolving disputes is what talk pages are for. The end-all recourse for everything on Wikipedia was not being allowed. YOU were being disruptive, and without a policy to back you up, I'm just as right as you are -- even if you were acting as an admin, but we've already established you weren't.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:49, 10/25/2007
To correct the flaws in admin oversight, we'll need the best reformers we've got, and you're one of them. I think it's just a matter of time before we institute the necessary changes (possibly including those brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Community enforced administrator recall). Be a Rosa Parks, not a Rodney King. Stay in the game. Keep advocating. Bring attention to the flaws in the system. You were the spearhead for bringing Alkivar's misbehavior to light (you were in the news!); I can't fathom why you're backing down from this one. Wikipedia can be fixed, and if there's anyone who taught me that, it's you -- and I mean that. You've emboldened me through your example time and time again.--Father Goose 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians are defensive of their fundamental right to discuss. I would have done the same thing if I was in your situation. It annoys me to see people using the word "disruptive" when all you were doing was keeping discussion open. It couldn't be further from the truth. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I am convinced that -- at a minimum -- a lack of clarity in the circumstances and warning given renders Equazcion less than fully culpable for the 3RR violation. I am unblocking. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never. Thanks, Xoloz. FG, I'll give it some thought, but right now I don't have much of a desire to deal with this. Good luck for now.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:03, 10/25/2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Equazcion/Archive_1&oldid=1090510473"