User talk:Elonka/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1
2
3
Archive 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Elonka, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation says that only the originator should edit the "issues to mediate" section; if you want to restate the issue of WikiProject jurisdiction, please do so in the "Additional issues to mediate" section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the guide correctly, the correct course of action would be for you to move the question from the "Issues to mediate" section to "Additional issues to mediate". I'm loath to edit the latter section myself, since the page says "the initiating party should not edit the "Additional issues to mediate" section under any circumstances". Perhaps I'll ask Essjay or another MedCom member what the correct course of action is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern — however, I think that what's important here is that we get the mediation started, rather than worrying about how the questions are framed. I don't really see a substantial difference of content between the questions "If a wide discussion of Wikipedians opposes a guideline developed by a WikiProject, which takes precedence?" and "Should WikiProjects be allowed to set reasonable guidelines for the articles within their sphere of influence, even if those guidelines are not in strict adherence to Wikipedia-wide guidelines?"; the issue being discussed is the same. I hope an member of the Mediation Committee can sort out the mess at the request page — I'd rather not muddy the waters further myself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, with this edit, I trust you found everyone with multiple posts in the discussion? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good. Because I found Chuq (talk · contribs) who had over two dozen edits to the discussion and yet was left out. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't Josiah Rowe I was curious about. It was your edit declaring "multiple posts" as a criteria that piqued my interest. Finding someone with over 25 posts still missing after that was peculiar to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, is there any particular reason you haven't signed the RfM yet? You've edited the RfM page, but not signed your agreement. Surely your disagreement over the question framing isn't sufficient for you to want to sabotage the mediation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whee, it's been a whole, what, three hours since it was proposed, and you're already accusing me of sabotage? Breathe, man, breathe. :) --Elonka 06:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry — I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, and "sabotage" was an infelicitous word choice. I just thought it was odd that you would edit the page but not indicate whether you agree to the mediation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, I'm concerned that you have now edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) several times but have not agreed to mediation. I fear that this may jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. I think that if you have concerns about the RfM, it would be best to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) instead of editing the page any more. I also hope that you will agree to the mediation process. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 hours. --Elonka 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost episode sources

A question which mixes two of your recent issues, mall articles without secondary sources and Lost episode articles: Why do you find it acceptable that few (if any) Lost episodes have primary sources, let alone secondary sources, while, at the same time, it is so objectionable that malls do not have secondary sources, that you've brought several of them to WP:AFD? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that the Lost episode articles need {{unreferenced}} tags on them at the very least? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, no, it would not be proper to add {{unref}} to the many thousands of television episode articles around Wikipedia, since by their very nature, the episode effectively is a reference. I think this has been discussed at the talk page of WP:V, you might want to check there and toss in a question if it's a concern, or maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. --Elonka 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about that since there are still no secondary references. Given that, you may want to reconsider your stance against mall articles which suffer from the same problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I'm clear on this, are you saying that because you disagree with whether or not I add a {{primarysources}} tag to an article on a shopping mall, that you are considering adding {{unref}} tags to every television episode article on Wikipedia, to make some kind of point? --Elonka 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying the two situations are almost identical. Your adding {{primarysources}} to a zillion harmless mall articles - but not to the zillion harmless episode articles - gives the appearance that you are trying to make a point (i.e., you have gone beyond the "consideration" phase). Unless you see some contrast that I'm not seeing, it seems you should be adding the tag to both mall articles and episode articles - or you should be adding to neither. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry if this is inappropriate for me to jump in and comment on what you guys were talking about, but I have a question about the subject matter. Does Wikipedia consider primary and secondary sources to be equally essential? I have no idea. If so, then I sort of see wknight's point (except that I don't think that any of us are really obligated to police everything that we possibly could because of time and interest constraints, and that we shouldn't judge each other for how we choose to focus our efforts, as long as our edits themselves don't violate wikirules). If not, then aren't they totally separate things? Riverbend 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Your Concerns

Hello again, Elonka. I hope you had an enjoyable holiday last week.

I wanted to check with you to make sure that I understand your exact concerns regarding TV:NC so that I do not misrepresent you. This is my understanding of your position:

As a general rule, episode articles should not be disambiguated unless necessary.
As with any other guideline on Wikipedia, if there is consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series qualifies as an exceptional case, then it is appropriate to maintain different naming conventions for that series.
The TV:NC guideline page should include a statement acknowledging item #2.

If I am correct, then I think we are much closer to a consensus than people think, because I think there is already a consensus on the first two points. In this case, I intend to make a much bigger stink because I think there are a lot of people who are misunderstanding the issue.

I wanted to check with you, though, because I want to make sure I've got it right. If, for example, you actually disagree with the general guideline, but you are "settling" for the statement about exceptions as a means of compromise, then I want to make sure that your actual concerns are addressed.

So, to sum up, do the three statements above accurately and completely represent your position on the issue? Thanks again. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Elonka; that does help quite a bit. How about this for #2: "If there is a consensus among editors of a particular series (like Lost or Star Trek) that the series should follow a different naming convention, then it is appropriate to maintain a different naming convention for that series." Does that more accurately portray your position? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Elonka! --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spellchecking

Just dropping by to say thank you for the copyediting of my spelling errors on various mediation pages; one drawback of being a very rapid typist (about 90wpm) is that my accuracy is shot. Thanks a bunch for checking up on me! Essjay (Talk) 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's against our policies. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, keep in mind that there's a difference between editing people's comments, and editing a guideline page. If I see a spelling error in someone's personal comment on a Talk/Discussion page, then I shouldn't change it. But if it's on a policy/guideline page, it's fair game for fixing. --Elonka 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Westfield Groupo

Hi. Let's assume for the moment that The Westfield Group is a notable company - at least it would appear as Starbucks - I would like to get the main TWG article looking more like a WP:CORP FA class article. Do you agree, that in doing this, an important step would be to move the list of locations to List of Westfield shopping centres in ... by nation? I have dropped a proposal on the talk page but no comments there yet.Ga rr ie 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening with blocks

Please do not threaten people with blocks when you have not been authorized to do so. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that I missed your interpretation of Elonka's statement, but I don't believe she actually "threatened" anyone with being blocked. Maybe it is time to take a deep breath and view this in a new light. Thanks for seeing another POV!

Lmcelhiney 13:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your POV and input but five different admins have been involved in that discussion. None of them have mentioned the possibility of blocks and no one else anywhere has mentioned the possibility of blocks to my knowledge (if I have missed a communication somewhere, let me know). If administrators are not mentioning blocks and no one else is either, it is certainly beyond Elonka's authority to mention blocks. Furthermore, even longstanding administrators like Radiant! (talk · contribs) are performing these page moves and her "danger of being blocked" edit could be seen as being directed at all of them. It's inappropriate for a biased individual to use such language with no backing and only against people which do not agree with their bias. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wknight94, I did not threaten anyone with a block, and it is obvious that I do not have the authority to make any blocks. I pointed out that continuing with controversial page moves could lead to a block, as was indicated by the ArbCom proceeding which Thatcher linked. Therefore, it is not a good idea to encourage people to proceed with page moves against consensus. Please stop throwing warning templates at my page every time you disagree with something I do, and please stop stalking my contribs. I've been trying very hard to be patient, and have been bending over backwards to assume good faith, but if you continue with this behavior, I will have no choice but to pursue further action against you. Knock it off. --Elonka 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't help your case at all. First how is anyone to supposed to know your "danger of being blocked" statement is referring to the ArbComm that Thatcher mentioned? Second, there were no blocks resulting from that ArbComm until after people ignored it and continued edit warring - so that analogy is completely flawed. Third, don't bother trying to claim you have consensus for not doing page moves. At best, there was no consensus to modify the TV-NC guideline so it would remain the same. Since moving those pages is in line with the existing guideline, it cannot possibly be considered "against consensus" - let alone be called a blockable action. Even if you had gotten full consensus for the exception verbiage, it was still just for exceptions - so the pages that were not tied to exceptions (i.e. most of them) would still be movable - and certainly not blockable. Fourth, my warning was not a template - it was handwritten. Fifth, I have that RFM on my watchlist (of course) so I'm not "stalking your contribs". Even if I were watching your contribs, I'd be perfectly within my rights per WP:HA.

Bottom line, even if your block mention was not a threat, it sounded like one. Worse yet, there is no substance behind the statement so it sounds like an empty threat. You should know better. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard Wikipedia policy per WP:RM, that controversial page moves should not be carried out unless there is consensus for the moves. The guideline page is clearly listed as disputed, and there is much controversy on its talk page, to the point where there's even a note at the top of the talk page cautioning people that it's in "rapid archive" mode, plus a clear notice about an in-process mediation. To say that further moves would be non-controversial, is absurd. --Elonka 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves involving pages under some sort of exception guideline? I would agree (but even then it would be cause to undo the move, not block someone). But that little tag does not mean "no television-related articles in the entire system can be moved". No admin in their right mind would block anyone that moved a television-related article now and I think you know that. Saying otherwise is irresponsible, esp. among so many that have not been here nearly as long as you. You should be setting an example not making threatening-sounding statements that are patently false. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wknight94, your behavior is in clear violation of the policy against Wikipedia:Harassment. You have been following me around Wikipedia, nitpicking my edits, and acting in an uncivil manner. Stop it. --Elonka 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for wikify

Hi

I know you're an experienced Wikipedian and do loads of great stuff, including tagging articles without categories, etc. I notice you often add the "wikify" tag too. Often these articles don't need wikifying, especially when they are stubs (recent examples include 49th Military Police Brigade or 7 Shot Screamers In Wonderland to pick two early ones from the list you tagged today.

If you tag them for wikfication they will be added to the wikify backlog, and someone from WikiProject Wikify will have to come & remove the tag again. Even if someone has edited the article to add a category, which appears to be your main suggestion, they often leave the wikify tag. I guess I am requesting that, in order not to waste others' time, you make your tagging a bit more specific, and only add a wikify tag when you feel it's really necessary.

I'd love to hear your views on this. Windymilla 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation, which helps me understand the reason. Looking more closely at 49th Military Police Brigade, where the only real wikifying problem was the lack of bolded title, I see the title was fixed by User:Malcolma when they categorised it in response to your tag, but unfortunately they didn't remove the wikify tag. The meaning of the wikify tag is a bit woolly, perhaps leading to a reluctance to remove it, in case others feel it was removed prematurely. Anyway, it's good to exchange views & get an insight into others' work. Thanks, Windymilla 11:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls

Dear Elonka,

I'd be happy to take a look at the situation you are referring to and offer some input. You should realize (and probably have realized if you read some of the arbitration discussions), however, that I had some intense disagreements with other editors on particulary the subject of removing other peoples' talk posts. Therefore, I am not a suitable person to ask if you are looking for a neutral "mediator". If you want input (or support, since you apparently have the same dispute with one of those editors), give a link where I can find the discussion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elonka, I have been reading through some of the links you supplied, but the situation is indeed very complex. One thing I do not fully understand is why you have not agreed to official mediation in this dispute. That is part of the normal dispute resolving process, and at least that way the whole dispute is looked upon by someone neutral. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've agreed on the talk page of the mediation. The mediation page itself has been protected, since about 18 hours after it was created. --Elonka 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid contrib stalking

I have WP:RM watchlisted, so I saw your comments there and responded. Just today, I decided to check your contribs to see if you had taken similar action on other pages. As it turned out, you had. I am not in the habit of checking your contribs and I will not make it habit out of courtesy to you. However, I find your actions at WP:RM and WP:POLL to be incredibly unhelpful to the debate at WP:TV-NC, as none of us would be expected to find your posts those pages and be able to provide an opposing point of view. I repeat that I have no intention of stalking your contribs, but this pattern of posting related discussions on unrelated pages is practically an invitation for people to do just that.

I'm not saying that you don't have the right to bring up valid arguments on other pages, but I ask that you post a note at WP:TV-NC when it could impact the debate there. It would go a long way toward building good will and trust. – Anþony talk 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I invite you to pick a representative article and put it up for RM. If the consensus is decided in your favor, I will support a moratorium on the page moves. Also, those moves have been documented at WP:TV-NC, so your analogy is flawed. – Anþony talk 04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM is not a guideline or policy. It is the recommended mechanism for determining consensus support for a move, which is all that is required. There's plenty of evidence that consensus support has been reached (chiefly the Lost RM), though I am fully aware that you disagree. It's ridiculous to demand that every one of these articles should be put up for RM, since the issues involved are essentially the same for all of them. Even a multi-RM would be infeasible, since it is practically impossible to find all the pages beforehand. Regardless, we have strayed far away from my original request, into areas that involve more than just you or me. If you have further comments you'd like to make, I suggest you bring them up on WP:TV-NC. – Anþony talk 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

I was told off-wiki that your latest angle in the TV dispute boils down to prosecuting people who oppose polls. Before you take that line of thought any further, let me remind you who it was that removed that poll against you. (Radiant) 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Prosecuting people who oppose polls"? --Elonka 10:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular desire to get involved in this so I'll take your word for it that this rumor is unfounded. I hope the mediation will prove productive; I get the impression that some people believe you to be acting disingeniously. (Radiant) 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clement of Dunblane

Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. I trust you have no background in the topic, so will be able offer good neutral edits. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I suggest to re-sumbit a medcabal case. Wiki eZach| talk 03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them the link, and let's restart. Wiki eZach| talk 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Thank you

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Regards,--Hús ö nd 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brothers College, Bulawayo

Thanks for reminding to categorise. This revealed several Christian Brothers Colleges with 'weird' categorisation i.e repetitive, rundundant part 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) part 10:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evaporators

I appreciate your advice and the useful header on the new Evaporators article contributed by User:PShoor PShoor. I cordially invite you to look at the other student projects, listed on my user page. Many thanks. susato 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen

Let me review it quickly to see if a block is needed, if so, I will get one. Wiki eZach| talk 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, --`/aksha 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MedCab

Reading through that discussion page, I'd say that informal mediation is probably dead in the water at this point; it may have worked a month ago, but I think the discussion seems to have collapsed past that point by now. Kirill Lokshin 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, all things considered, it may not be entirely appropriate for me to act as an advisor to a party to an Arbitration case at this point. ;-)

Two general points that might be helpful, though:

The list of parties is open to change; if you think that other editor's involvement is important, you can add them to the list.
The initial statement's role is primarily related to the initial acceptance or rejection of the case; if it's accepted, there will be a set of evidence and workshop pages to use for the actual substance of the case.

Kirill Lokshin 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TMNT

Elonka, I apologize for taking so long to respond to you; I have been away from Wikipedia for the past week and am just now catching up with all the recent hubbub.

I am not certain why you took exception to my moving of episode articles at TMNT 1987; you mentioned there that "the issue is pretty clearly in dispute," but I saw no evidence of that dispute at TMNT 1987. In fact, the issue had been brought up by tiZom in August, and no one had offered any opinions one way or the other since then.

I've made mention of this, and more specifically described my good-faith intentions, at the discussion you initiated at AN/I.

I am curious, though, about your remark on the TMNT talk page that it is inappropriate to make changes to the TMNT pages without first consulting the original editors. This seems to me to counter the fundamental nature of Wikipedia: the original editors do not own the TMNT pages, and they agreed to allow their work to be "mercilessly edited" when they submitted the changes, as we all do.

If you feel that the TMNT 1987 pages should maintain their own naming convention, I invite you to make the case over that the TMNT 1987 page so we can determine a consensus. (Had you, or anyone else, made this case in response to tiZom's original request, I would certainly have not made any page moves.) As I've mentioned on AN/I, if a consensus there emerges to have all the pages disambiguated, I will gladly go through and add the suffixes again myself. :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'bot and {{uncat}}

You're welcome. It's quite satisfying to be able to do relatively technically straightforward stuff that others seem to find useful, and hopefully ultimately helps various maintenance operations once these have a reasonable category on them. I suppose at this rate, you'll indeed be spending a lot of time on uncategorised pages for some time to come! Alai 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, trouble is that it doesn't take wikipedians very long to create 1000 brand new uncategorised articles... or indeed, a multiple thereof. As the last full db failed, there may be another fairly soon, at which point it'll be a bit clearer what the overall progress with uncat-tagging is. I've yet to tackle articles with templates, so there'll be probably around 10-15,000 of those -- plus all the new articles -- so I'm making no wild forecasts about your chances of seeing (m)any new letters on the special page, just yet. Alai 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking/Campaigning

In the recent discussions at WT:TV-NAME and related articles, you have contacted editors who have edited articles in a certain way and urged them to participate in the disambiguation discussion and page move votes. You should be aware that selectively contacting editors who share a point of view and asking them to vote may be considered Votestacking or Campaigning per WP:SPAM. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] --Milo H Minderbinder 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that it is routine to contact the editors who created an article, to let them know if that article has been nominated for deletion or is otherwise undergoing discussion about a major change. That's not vote-stacking, it's a courtesy note. --El on ka 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, might want to look into Ned Scott's behavior: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. --El on ka 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your intention was to "contact the editors who created an article", why did you only contact User:Tedius Zanarukando, who posted a "guideline" that agreed with your philosophy of predisambiguation but created relatively few TMNT articles, while not notifying a number of other editors who had created and edited many more TMNT articles? Why did you "notify" User:SilvaStorm, a user with relatively few edits of Lost articles but who did a mass move of them without consensus [11], while not notifying others who have created and edited far more of those articles? And if your intention was "notification", why is your message to Opark [12] so one-sided ("Attack on The Wire episodes/FYI, there's a group of editors that are working their way through Wikipedia, disrupting category after category of television episodes. Their next target is The Wire, which episodes I see that you created. ") instead of merely notifying him that the discussion was taking place? I've been looking at Ned's notifications, do you have any reason to believe he contacted those individuals with reason to believe that they'd agree with him? There's nothing wrong with notifying editors of a decision as long as it is done impartially as opposed to only notifying those on one side of an issue. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted SilvaStorm precisely because that editor was moving articles without consensus, as it was my desire to get them to stop with move wars and other disruptive actions, and to instead engage in civil discussion about the matter. I also contacted most of the other editors that were engaging in non-consensus moves, to ask them to stop as well. Now please, will you stop with this rather desperate attempt to claim wrongdoing on my part? The term "glass houses" comes to mind. [13] --El on ka 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a request to stop non-consensus moves, you put a lot of emphasis on coming to WP:TV-NAME and joining the discussion. You haven't answered why you contacted User:Tedius Zanarukando. Nor have you answered whether the people Ned contacted were only those on one side of the issue (looking at the history, it looks like that list includes those who disagreed with him). And what is the point of that diff? I just see your false accusations that I'm a sock puppet, something I would think you would like to forget. Which particular glass house are you accusing me of being in? Are you saying that I have been campaigning or votestacking? Or that someone campaigned for me to join a particular discussion? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Elonka, → [14] ←. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues: [15]. Even after pointing this out, you contact ("notify?") another editor who has made edits that follow your disambiguation preference: [16]. How can we assume good faith when it's so clear that you are only contacting those you believe are predisposed to agree with you? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted that editor because he was the last actively involved editor to move the page (as opposed to a bunch of non-involved editors, including both you and me, piling in from the guideline page), so his opinion is valuable. I have no idea whether he's going to be for or against disambiguation at this time. --El on ka 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved? Non-involved? I suggest you read WP:OWN. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you re-read it, since you seem to have a misunderstanding of what WP:OWN is about. For example, respect for other editors is recommended: "Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors." There's also a difference between "owning" an article, and being a major "contributor" to that article. For example WP:PROD recommends notifying an article's creator that a deletion has been proposed. See {{prodwarning}}. Ditto with AfDs, see {{afdwarning}}. These kinds of courtesy notes are routine. --El on ka 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"respect for other editors is recommended" doesn't mean that the creator of an article needs to give permission to make changes. Does RM recommend notifying an article's creator? You still haven't addressed why out of the many article creators, you seem to only have contacted those who have gone on record with edits that agree with your disambig philosophy. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted interested editors who were either the creators of articles, or the last ones to make a relevant change to the pages in discussion. I have neither recommended how they participate in the discussion, nor do I have any idea whether they'll agree or disagree with me. And the charge that I'm contacting the "creator of an article to give permission to make changes" is just absurd. I have never done any such thing. --El on ka 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to hear what Elonka has to say about this →[17] - Ned Scott 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, I think it's pretty clear from that diff, that your first pass was only to invite editors who agreed with you, and then after MatthewFenton pointed out what you were doing, you invited a couple others. --El on ka 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That or there were only two other editors who were "disagree", and my original pass was more about activity in the discussion. Most of your "supporters" were already aware of the discussion. -- Ned Scott 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking exactly at who I specifically invited, I placed neutral summaries of the dispute (something I've hardly seen you do) to some RFC pages, WP:LOST, WP:TV, and then four specific editors (Nohat and Wknight94, because they were the ones who changed my mind, and then two participants of another dispute [where the only disagree was Matthew, who was already apart of the discussion.])-- Ned Scott 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

CallMe Communications

Since the userspace version was userfied from articlespace, and a nearly-identical article was speedied (repeatedly), I went ahead and removed the userspace copy as well. If someone wants to make an article about them, it's better that it not be from that foundation. -- nae'blis 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, thanks. --El on ka 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

Having noticed you following the request for arbitration [[18]], I wanted to wish you good luck with that as I truly think we should have standardized naming.

I also wanted to make a friendly comment about your edit summary here [19] which might be truthfully a smoothing out job but such a statement is 1- not encyclopedic and 2- not creating a positive atmosphere to work in. A simple summary (syntax or style in this case) might avoid some unwanted reactions. Lost Kiwi^(talk) 07:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you feel that "Smoothing out the English" is an unfriendly comment. I have routinely had foreign nationals ask me to review their articles on Wikipedia and ask me to perform this function. However, if you find it unpleasant, I do apologize, and will keep your concerns in mind that others may feel similarly, and I shall endeavor to find more neutral ways of expressing the action in the future. --El on ka 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lockhart

I noticed you put the uncategorized tag on Bruce Lockhart and now I have a question! I was going to beef it up a bit in order to categorize it. So, I googled Mr. Lockhart and lo and behold the first entry in google to pop up was a more complete page for the same person on Wiki. It is under R. H. Bruce Lockhart. What is the best way to deal with this? Redirect? Request a delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.83.223 (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.83.223 (talk • contribs) 03:02, December 14, 2006

Description

I’m bothered by the wording of the category in which you've placed me above: They're not (as) militant about it, but, through either unawareness of the unethical tactics by the above group, or quiet acceptance of it, they seem to be allied with the gang. I don’t care for the implication that my opinion is based either on ignorance or on acceptance of unethical tactics. Have you used this wording elsewhere? Putting this on your talk page is one thing, but if you've put it on any page related to the arbitration, I’d like the opportunity to refute it. Thanks. --Brian Olsen 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, as one of the "NC Gang" as you've described me, I would like to say that I am not "adamantly against any kind of compromise, against mediation, and against running a new poll". What I am against is the random granting of exceptions to guidelines without compelling reasons to back them up. So far I have heard none, as I don't believe consistency alone is compelling enough, nor that WikiProjects warrant special treatment. Come up with a new one and I'll listen. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing the wording when you posted this on the Evidence page. I don't completely agree with your description of the first group, but I appreciate you removing the implications I mentioned from your reference to me. --Brian Olsen 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an attack

It's rather ironic that in rebuking me for my comment about "pulling an Elonka", you engage in the very behavior I was alluding to in that remark — the tendency to distribute civility and "NPA" warnings at the slightest provocation. It is not a personal attack to refer to an individual's consistently demonstrated pattern of behavior, especially one which, as Leflyman points out, you yourself admit to on this very page. Similarly, describing remarks like this (to take but one example) as "snide asides" is not a personal attack, but a description of a pattern of behavior. WP:NPA says "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks." I don't believe that I have made any comments about your personal character, and I resent your repeated suggestion that I have. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Josiah Rowe) Guys, how would you feel if I were to post something like, "Oh, he did a revenge-AfD, he was pulling a Leflyman," "Oh, he's just being hypocritical, he's pulling a Josiah," "Oh, he's just sniping again, he's pulling a Milo." It is NOT CIVIL. Please try to adopt a better standard of behavior, and treat others the way that you would like to be treated. Before using someone's name in a post, especially for a negative comment, think to yourself, "How would it feel if they said this exact same thing about me?" If it would make you angry, then it's probably better to not say it. As for my conversations with Matthew, I talk to him every day in IMs, so you have no idea what I do or don't tell him. In fact, I've been talking with several people in this dispute, who are in support of the "Let the WikiProjects decide" argument, but don't want to participate in the discussion because of how toxic it has become. If you'll look at the NC page, you'll see that nearly every time anybody speaks up in opposition, they are immediately challenged. This is not the way to hold a civil discussion. If Matthew and I are the most vocal, it's probably because we've got the thickest skins, and have been able to withstand the steady stream of abuse. But regardless of what behavior you ascribe to him or to me, it does not excuse incivility on your part. Please stop it. --El on ka 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, responding to non-personal attacks with actual personal attacks couched in the hypothetical. It's sort of like the O. J. Simpson non-confession. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between describing behavior you yourself have admitted to (namely, "distributing civility and NPA warnings on the spot" — your own words, Elonka) and characterizing those actions in a negative fashion. Saying that Leflyman's AfD was a "revenge-AfD" ascribes a motive to him. Calling me hypocritical is personal in a way that none of my comments about you have been. You once suggested that I re-read WP:NPA — let me suggest the same, with particular emphasis on the sections WP:NPA#Examples that are not personal attacks and WP:NPA#Be aware of WikiLawyering. I will acknowledge that a few of my comments may have been on the borderline of civility, but I strongly dispute the accusation that I have made personal attacks. If you think I have, take it up at WP:PAIN and see what sort of response you get there.

There is a difference between incivility and personal attacks. Both are forbidden on Wikipedia, but they are not the same thing. I will accept your civility reminders with as much grace as I can muster, but I do not accept your accusations of personal attacks, because they are simply untrue. Kindly desist. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is really unfortunate, distressing, and frankly inexplicable behavior from an admin. Elonka, you have my sympathies on this exchange, but it seems clear that the behavior here has not changed and will not change. Regrettable. This is exactly the kind of thing that has turned me off Wikipedia in general. PKtm 07:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? PKtm, I'm not sure I understand how you can come to such conclusions. I understand that you support Elonka in the disambig discussion, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with her on everything. It's just.. blind support, then. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Once again, Elonka, it seems that no matter how many times I persist in saying that I haven't taken a stance on the disambig issue, some people will hear what they want to hear. It plays nicely into what seems to be their persistent "them against us" mentality. Not only do I not agree with you "everywhere", as Ned says in his (yes, personal) attack on me above, but I frequently disagree with you pretty virulently. Maybe even more often than not! So this is pretty funny. Also amusing is how Ned is clearly watching your talk page and jumping in within 12 minutes of my post. Ned, if you're reading this, and it seemly likely that you will be within a few minutes, let me say once again that you do NOT know my stance on disambiguation, and frankly, you just might be surprised. What you should know, though, is my very clear stance on these unacceptable, uncivil behaviors that have characterized this debate from the beginning, and I reiterate my ongoing statement that you and others, through your behavior, have driven people off from participating in a sober, calm discussion. I also recognize that you don't really care. ~-- PKtm 18:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PKtm, your finger pointing and condescending edit summaries [20] are making it hard to swallow your messages of martyrdom and appeal to pity as well as your "disgust" and "dismay" and "distress" and being "fed up" [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Lately, you've been at the front of the incivility parade, whether you realize it or not. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job of proving my point, once again, Wknight94. -- PKtm 19:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point falls flat when you become the worst perpetrator of the behavior you're protesting. If more would resist the urge to get the last word in or pile on with an "I agree, your behavior is unacceptable", maybe the dispute within the dispute would not have gotten so bad. It just so happens there's an RFAR going on to address all this so I don't understand why everyone still feels the need to address each others' incivility personally. Why not add a diff to your RFAR evidence and leave each other alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally was going to respond to Elonka giving Josiah Rowe another personal attack warning, but then I saw PKtm's message. So.. no, I was not waiting to pounce on your comment. As far as you "supporting Elonka" I mean in her quest for another poll and all that jazz. I honestly don't know why you think that all these messages are "personal attacks", especially when you turn around and respond like you do. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix my username in your evidence

I asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence but you apparently didn't see it. – Anþony talk 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a third time to correct the username. – Anþony talk 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very odd that this hasn't happened yet, considering this. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaracterisation

Twice now you have claimed with no validity that my AfD listing of two articles you authored about your family members were "revenge AfDs":

at WT:NC-TV#ArbCom_notice? (on 14 December, where you further make a veiled threat)
at Josiah Rowe's talk page (on 15 December, as a "hypothetical")

I had intended to let the issue alone, but as this appears to be part of a pattern of mischaracterising the actions and intentions of other editors (as pointed out in the above sections), I ask that you apologise for these personal attacks, strike them through and desist in further such characterisations. Thank you, --Leflyman^Talk 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to any evidence that you have edited in those subject areas before? Otherwise it seems pretty clear that your only link with those two articles, is me, potentially Josiah's talkpage, the Naming Conventions dispute, and our disagreements about the definition of "original research" at the Lost articles. Or in other words, just how exactly did those two articles, about my grandfather and great-grandfather, come to your attention? Further, do you think it was appropriate to just immediately nominate an established and referenced article for deletion, without making any other attempt to raise concerns about it? To my knowledge you never asked for a citation, never edited the article, never raised a concern at the talkpage, and never even posted a {{prod}} template. You just went straight to AfD, on both articles at the same time. That seems to me to be a pretty clear demonstration of a "bad faith nom." --El on ka 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate articles can come to one's attention in any number of ways, from hitting the "Random" link to clicking on articles listed on user's pages. I've tagged numerous articles for deletion in such a way; mostly "Conflict of Interest" articles (often called "vanity articles") from recent/single use editors, which were speedy-deletes. Those from longer-term editors, or making more complex claims to existence, such as the two family members articles you authored, are given full AfD listings. In this case, it's likely that I came across them from the rather prominent Famous relatives list of articles you've authored/contributed, promoted on your user page. Those articles are in clear contradiction to WP:COI, and have been noted as such by numerous others. Contrary to your claim of "pretty clear demonstration of 'bad faith' nom", there is no deletion policy requirement to ask for citation, edit the article, post on the talkpage, or use PROD before placing an article for AfD. (Note: Proposed Deletions are only for uncontroversial deletions which do not fall into speedy delete categories.) You perhaps have not taken to heart the admonishment made at Guide to deletion:

"Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. A deletion nomination is not a rejection of the author or an attack on his/her value as a member of the Wikipedia community. Therefore, please do not take personally a nomination of an article you've worked on."

--Leflyman^Talk 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... of Netoholic

Under your evidence, you say that "Netoholic disagrees" with Josiah Rowe in this comment. It is a mischaracterization to say I disagreed about the "broad consensus". Certainly, there was consensus to document the practice of using redirects. I only sought to voice that it not be a strict requirement. Please remove or revise from the evidence page. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's your intent to imply I "disagreed" about the consensus, please remove it, or I'll just rebut it on the evidence page myself. Otherwise, simply change the accompanying text to "Netoholic is "not comfortable with this being a recommendation for -all- episode articles". As you said, let the diff speak for itself. -- Netoholic @ 21:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. :) --El on ka 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NC discussion

I'm not sure what would be the point of fragmenting the discussion. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't communicate with wikipedia folk outside of talk pages. I believe in keeping things "on the record". --Milo H Minderbinder 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why mediation failed, and how to proceed while waiting for ArbCom

Hi, Elonka. Since the failure of the attempted mediation is a bit of a side-issue to the matters being considered by ArbCom, I've placed an informal summary of why and how the mediation failed here. In short, there were a number of elements, but the first domino to fall was the edit war about Radiant!, and if that hadn't happened I think the chances of the arbitration succeeding would have been much higher.

If you want to discuss the matter, we can of course do so, but I think this sort of archaeology isn't the best use of our time. Honestly, I think we should all try to put the naming issue aside while we're waiting for the arbitrators to get around to us (which may not happen until after the new appointees are installed). Continuing to nitpick about who did what when isn't really going to help anyone's case at this point — I think the important evidence is on the evidence page, and the ArbCom will decide what it will decide (if they can wade through all the evidence and proposals on the Workshop page).

As for the standard of my behavior, I'll take your comments under advisement, and will respect the judgment of my peers and the ArbCom. Personally, I don't think that my edits to the evidence or workshop pages have been particularly emotional or partisan. Of course, I'm human, so I'm capable of error and bias — but I think that neither you, I, nor any other participant in this dispute is a particularly good judge of my neutrality, or that of other participants. We're all too close to the matter to see it clearly — which is why it's good that the case will be examined by neutral arbitrators, who don't have a dog in the fight. The challenge for us is to wait patiently and try not to escalate the dispute while we're waiting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year. I want to thank you for your continued support to the project, and more specifically for the overall observation of the articles, and also for helping me with my articles. Best regards, --Lperez2029 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy. Happy New Year, to both of you. I've not been editing all that much recently, though. --Ricksy 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]