User talk:Yaksha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

If I've left a note on your talk page, then your talk page will be on my watchlist. You can reply there if you want.

If you leave a note here on my talk page, then I will be replying here unless otherwise requested.

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here Comes the Squirtle Squad

These articles need to be nominated for deletion also. These pages have little summaries.

Please check them out Ryulong and her sockpuppets are vandaizing these pages.

Pokéball Peril
The First Pokemon! The Last Battle!!
The Pokemon Center is Very Busy!
Deciding Match! VS Regice!!
Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!
Find Pikachu! Route 202!
Meowth Rules!
Get the Show on the Road
A Ruin with a View
Perap and the Pokémon Comedian!
Mean With Envy
Attack! The Stray Manyula!!
The Scuffle of the Legends
Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
Pacifidlog Jam
Eight Ain't Enough

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokeant (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

That's nice. I'll have a look at them. But you have no right to slip them into my AfD and make it look like as if i've nominated them. Stop doing it. --`/aksha 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy is reverting Pacifidlog Jam, on the grounds that you are looking into the article. Any suggestions on what to do? I have no interest in breaking 3RR. -Amarkov ^babble 02:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the article before.

He tried to slip a bunch of articles into an AfD i started on the basis that "those articles should be nominated too". I told him to stop slipping things into my AfD and that i'll go take a look at the articles he suggested personally.

But it doesn't really matter. People shouldn't be doing things to articles on the basis of an AfD until after the AfD is finished.

He's already suspected to be a sock and made a huge mess on the said AfD (deleting other people's comments). Maybe report him in for vandalism? --`/aksha 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew the stuff about the AfD, he kept trying to keep the notice and kill off the redirect that was put on. Oh well. -Amarkov ^babble 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was an AfD notice on it? The articles weren't even nominated for AfD. I'm going to remove them. I think, even if the articles should be bundled in, it's quite rude after so many days to add more article into the AfD. At least, it's sort of unfair for the people who voted early. --`/aksha 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked for indefenity. I am not a sockpuppett. I'm sorry I'm just a 15 year old boy.. Pokeant

Then don't get into edit wars with people. If someone reverts your edit, and you don't understand why (or don't agree), try talking first. It means less fustration for you and for everyone else. --`/aksha 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

May you include them in the AfD??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokeant (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

For a start, sign your comments. Secondly, maybe. I'm not sure. Including articles after an AfD has started can be rude, and unfair for people who voted early on. --`/aksha 02:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have talked to Ryulong (my friend has) and she and A Man in Black continues to revert / merge the articles. I need help!! Pokeant

They continue to revert them because they are not part of the AfD discussion. Therefore, you have no right to state that they may not be changed. And seeing as consensus over at WP:PCP is to merge them, you're not going to get anywhere. -Amarkov ^babble 02:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) no you don't. what they are doing is fine. They're probably just carrying out merge plans as decided from discussions in the pokemon collaboration project. --`/aksha 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But does'nt that seem that the PCP is a sort of Dictatorship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokants (talk • contribs) 12:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

No. It's called consensus, and one person isn't allowed to override it. Especially when said person does not actually want the articles to be there, but wants them kept so they can go on AfD. -Amarkov ^babble 02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The project takes care of pokemon articles. There are tons of users involved in it. They discussed about what to do with pokemon articles. Anyone can join the project and join in discussions. ANd now they're carrying out mass merges i believe. Also, sockpuppetry is VERY not allowed. Pokeant just got blocked so you pop up with a new account? Lastly, sign your comments!--`/aksha 02:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want the articles to be removed? All of the other episode pages of different shows have pages. Whats so bad of having pages of Pokemon there are like 30+ people at the PCP it would be some extra work to keep the articles vandal-free.

Do you want me to tell why I was blocked? I was offened when someone wrote the GD word. My mommy and the pastor (I go to church) told me that, word was a very very bad word. I'm 15 year old. Also I am new to Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokants (talk • contribs).

Let me lay out the bad things you've done.

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point
Adding AfD notices to articles not on AfD
Going against consensus and restoring articles you don't even like
Adding new articles to an AfD
Editing other people's comments
Sockpuppetry

Don't do pretty much everything you've done. I reccomend that you go read all of the policies.-Amarkov ^babble 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 4400 AfD

Hi. Just wanted to say I strongly support your AfD for The 4400 episodes. I cannot see how the closing admin made his judgement to keep, and I have posted on his talk page asking for a clarification of his reasoning. If you want to take this AfD to WP:DRV, I will support you. Zunaid ^(T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 08:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I too would support challenging this in DRV. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I fail to see how numbers outweighed rational arguments. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, i'm not planning to take it up to deletion review. I have no idea how deletion review works, and i'm really not interested in picking fights with anyone. There're a few people who seem bent on protecting their articles. And they seem to have far more time and effort to spare defending what they want on wikipedia than I. I am, however, planning to renominate them for deletion if there is no improvement on the articles after a few months. Since the main reason for keep was that the articles will get better in the future. --`/aksha 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to suggest that you put the articles up for deletion again in a few months, citing the previous AfD then. This is the most peaceful solution; thanks. —Xyrael / 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I hope I haven't embarrased you

Yaksha,

I'm just writing to let you know that I've mentioned an earlier incident involving you, me, and another user that took place a few days ago. I didn't use your name, but I did provide enough documentation that it can be easily discovered. I know you said you weren't particularly bothered by the incident, but I was. I took you up on your departing comment and edit summary that the two of us can have fun by continuing our discussion about that incident without you. (I see in the above comments that the catalyst for that incident, the 4400 nomination, has not been resolved to your satisfaction.)

I have no intention to offend you, or drag you into anything. I just need to resolve a chronic personal conflict between myself and another user. There's no need for your participation in any way. I apologize if I overstepped.

--Loqi T. 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to reference the continued discusson. It can be found here. --Loqi T. 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's okay. No harm done. --`/aksha 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

When television episodes are named after things, they need disambiguation. This applies to most of the Desperate Housewives episodes, which are usually named for Stephen Sondheim songs. - Outerlimits 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i'm well aware of that. If there's another article already with the name, disambiguation is not used. But when there's no other article with the name, then there's no point disambiguating.

Many of the Desperate Housewives episode articles have this kind of unneeded disambiguation, which is why i'm moving them.

(see discussions at WT:TV-NC) --`/aksha 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They need this kind of disambiguation, which is why I'm adding it back. If the (peculiar) decision has been taken to not provide it in the article title, the reader must at the very least be pointed to the appropriate article treating the pre-existing song after which the episode is named, whether that song has its own article or is covered in the article of the musical in which it appears. - Outerlimits 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i know. A header disambiguation template is used for such cases. Disambiguation is only used when there are two existing articles of the same name. It's not actually any new decision. If you take a look at the disambiguation guildlines, and then TV episode naming guildlines at WP:TV-NC, you will find that both quite specifically address the issue of when not to use disambiguation - that is, when there are not two articles of the same name. It's been like that for ages. The current discussion was just a decision to actually change series which don't follow the pre-existing guildlines.

For cases as you've outlined, the header disambiguation template can be used. Which i am planning to add in the case of episodes which are after songs. Or you're welcome to do so if you want, you obviously seem more familiar with the area than I. --`/aksha 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did take a look. I'll let you do the work; as long as you're willing to clean up after yourself, I won't feel obligated! :) - Outerlimits 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sure. I'm about to fix the links on the episode list article. Double redirects are already fixed. The header disambiguation tags will be added once i'm done with the episode list article. --`/aksha 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pardoner's Tale

This redirect (a common name of a cornerstone of western literature) is not eligible for deletion. However, I've created a disambig link at The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale, which should solve the problem. Thanks. Chick Bowen 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to open it up for discussion list it at redirects for discussion. Chick Bowen 06:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category of deleting redirect pages

You wrote: "What Smothered needs is a speedy tag, under the category of deleting redirect pages so proper (not cut and paste) moves can be made." Unfortunately, Elonka makes this statement from the uncontroversial moves section at WP:RM false: "If there is any doubt as to whether a page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section." --Serge 06:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncontroversial doesn't mean everyone agrees. It just means it's a simple black and white matter, where it's obvious what needs to be done.

I assume you're referring to "if for no other reason than that the term "Smothered" can reasonably be assumed to later be needed for some other article, so disambiguation is appropriate. I would also point out that discussion about the issue of disambiguation is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), so it is premature to be engaged in page moves at this time. Please do not be disruptive." I didn't take that into account at all. The first part of her statement is directly addressed by our guildlines - we don't pre-emptively disambiguate on such assumptions. The second part of her argument is nothing but a misleading statement, consensus at the discussion was already reached and page moves are legitimately underway.

Her complaint doesn't make the move contraversial. It's like someone going "opposse, i just don't like it" to a uncontraversial move - it doesn't turn it contraversial. Elonka's complaint isn't much of a step above "i just don't like it". --`/aksha 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

posting notes on everyone's talk pages huh? haha... seems like a good idea. I think you already know how i feel about this whole "we need a new poll" mess, but i'll go respond anyway. --`/aksha 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shocking I need to do this for a poll that finished at a nearly 4-to-1 ratio but whatever... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please try not to refer to good faith comments as "immature." [1] Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

Remain polite per WP:Civility.
Solicit feedback and ask questions.
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks!

Also, may I point out that nearly all of your wiki-time has been spent on moving articles and participating in the Naming Discussions issue. Some of this behavior might possibly be seen as suspicious, since there are concerns of sockpuppetry. May I please encourage you to get involved in other areas of Wikipedia as well? Thank you. --Elonka 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid i simply could not find a more civil way of expressing my opinion towards your words than to just state it. Of course, it may be more poliet to not express my opinions at all, but last time i checked, civility does not equal being "poliet".

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sockpupptery. It is only disallowed when it is "to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block". If you believe i am doing any of those things, then you are welcome to report me in for a sockpuppter investigation.

You should, however, check your facts before stating them. Your case will be far more believable when you are not making suggestions such as that my 69 edits and 307 page moves (associated with this disagreement) out of a total of nearly 2878 edits constitute "nearly all of my wiki-time."

If you believe throwing around "sockpupptery" accusations like this will scare me into stepping down, you are very wrong. There are few things i personally find more appalling in an online community than experienced members trying to scare off newer members with accusations veiled behind false civility. --`/aksha 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, boy, do I know where you're coming from on *that* observation. Makes one wonder if "equal" in Wikipedian means "some are always more equal than others" Sixty Six 08:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost episodes

Just an honest mistake. I apologize. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

What? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally most people refer to it as a "Typographical error" — You know when a word is incorrect? Some people may refer to it as a spelling mistake, or maybe you might know it as an "incorrect word" — It may help if your signature actually stated your name? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 11:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop moving articles

Yaksha, as you may be aware, there is currently a very active discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television) about article naming. This discussion is not concluded, and the guideline itself is clearly labeled as being in dispute. As such, I do not believe that it has been helpful for you to be moving articles, nor to inform editors in other Wikipedia projects that the discussion has a clear consensus. Can I please ask you to stop moving articles, until the discussion is concluded? Thanks. --Elonka 08:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sign...this is getting really tiring. No, i'm not planning to stop. Article moving started long ago and is going to continue. The discussion concluded long ago, your own summary proved that. The guildline is not labeled as being in dispute, the use of the guildline is, but that doesn't mean we ignore it until we sort out our exceptions.

As for editors in other wikiprojects, they've agreed to the moving, or they've gone and done the moving themselves, or there has been no response. If this is to do with the lost episode articles, then go take a look at the survey yourself. You and matthew are the only ones who are oppossing.

If any other episode article moves is causing contraversy, then i can have then ran through "request moves" as i have done so for the lost articles. --`/aksha 08:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And stop assuming other editors are stupid. You can tell them what you want, i can tell them what i want. But at the end, keep in mind they're more than intelligent enough to go take a look at things for themselves. --`/aksha 08:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Well first, no, a checkuser request does not have to go through RFCU. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Checkuser_requests_made_through_other_means. Though I guess some time could be saved by simply asking you: What other accounts do you use? --Elonka 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm...i apologise about my comment regarding the "backchannels" thing. I had simply assumed RFCU was the only place ordinary wikipedians where supposed to go for Checkuser requests.

What other accounts i use is of my own concern only. I have no reason, and need not to, disclose them to anyone. --`/aksha 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have any of them been used in any of the naming-related discussions? --Elonka 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. None of them have been involved in anything at all related to TV episodes articles or related discussions. --`/aksha 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why keep them hidden? If there not being used for malicious purposes why would you have to hide them :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're not watching Elonka's talk page but one of his "socks" is plainly listed on his user creation log. Now I'll ask that you stop persisting with this inquisition. This little exchange is turning into a WP:STALK violation. File an RFCU (over the table or under the table) or leave him alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not watching Elonka's talk page, nor am I watching this but thank you for notifying me that operating sock puppets is not beyond him or her I have a pretty good idea of one of his or her sock puppets, thanks anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what that means. Read WP:SOCK for the difference between sockpuppets and abusive sockpuppets. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter x Hunter character pages

Hello. I'm thinking about renaming the HxH pages, and I noticed you created some of them. Wanna help me come up with the best possible titles? The normal page naming convention would be "List of Hunter x Hunter characters" but that's not going to work here since there's Main, Minor, etc. - Peregrinefisher 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

back when i created them, i didn't know what the naming conventions are. Or rather, it didn't really occur to me we had naming conventions.

the main/minor characters should be easy. Just follow the convention and have "List of Hunter x Hunter main characters" and "List of Hunter x Hunter minor characters". It's the page with the hunters that i have no idea how to name. It's like, "List of Hunter x Hunter hunters" would be really confusing. I thought of naming it as just "Hunter Association", since the page does have information on the Hunter Association, not just the characters. What do you think? --`/aksha 10:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I'm going to look around at what other pages have done. - Peregrinefisher 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop moving pages

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages and follow the correct procedure. --Elonka 19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cease and desist. Continued unilateral action such as this will prevent mediation from being successful. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, demon, but shouldn't the mediation be formally rejected at this point, with more than one user placing "disagree" on the agreement section? -- Ned Scott 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that people are allowed to change their minds, up until the deadline. It is probably ^demon's hope (and mine), that everyone will agree to mediation, so that we can find a civil way to proceed. --Elonka 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all page moves have to go through Requested Moves. Even the Requested MOves page itself says that. Stop trying to be misleading Elonka. The page moves started about a month ago, and i don't know how you can call it unilateral. More than half a dozen editors have been helping with moving articles for various TV series after the initial list got posted, and even outside parties from affected Wikiprojects have helped . So far, i've only filed one Request Move proposal was filed because Lost editors made a big fuss about their articles, and it resulted in a clear consensus for move.

Mediation is supposed to fix the problem. Stop trying to use the existence of the mediation as an excuse to create an even bigger fuss Elonka. --`/aksha 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy with all these moves, please. Seek consensus from other involved editors if there are disputes. Cleaning the mess after unwanted moves is a pain in the behind and unnecessary extra work for us admins. See this as a friendly warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution list, I see way too many moves in a single day. Slow way down do a few at a time and seek feedback from other editors about it before doing any more moves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at the context before giving your "friendly warnings". We had a list of 30 odd TV series to move. Doing them one at a time is hardly excessive. Especially considering every single Wikiproject whose articles where affected where given ample warnings (~2 weeks) and time to respond. --`/aksha 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you should really have a better look at the situation before jumping to conclusions. There is consensus for these moves, and the only objections have generally been from two individuals who don't agree with WP:D or WP:NAME. These moves have been done to bring the pages in line with wikipedia guidelines, they are clearly wanted moves cleaning up the mess. There's no reason to move any of them back, and so far there have only been two individuals who have even suggested that. RM's have been done in a couple cases, and support for the moves has been a clear consensus. And even when RM's have been made, those two individuals still charactarize those as "disruptive" (even to a WP:POINT). There were many pages that needed to be moved, doing it slowly just drags out the situation. The resolution of this is for all moves to be completed, and the sooner that happens the sooner we can all move on and be done with this. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Starry night

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Don't let the criticism get to you; keep up the good work. (Radiant) 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 12:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are my hero! Great job. I think I sense a future administrator... :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the other-methods-tried section, you may want to include that I asked Wikizach to recuse himself from the medcab but he basically stated that he would not. That's outside of my statement area of the RFAR so I don't want to touch it myself... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, Yaksha. Succinct summary of the issues, no inflammatory language, everything backed up by diffs. Well done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And wknight, i've added a mention of it (you asking Wikizach to recuse) into the Arb case now. --`/aksha 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your ArbCom statement

There's one thing that you might want to change in your ArbCom statement. You mentioned the The Sponge Who Could Fly RM as evidence of a consensus against pre-disambiguation. The issue there wasn't really about disambiguation. The previous title included "(The Lost Episode)" as part of the name of the episode. There was some confusion initially that it was an episode of Lost. Also, you say "and that the moves where disruptive" when you mean were. – Anþony talk 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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,—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

With the arbitration case now opened it would be a good idea for you to not make any more moves until the case is resolved. Thanks. Thatcher131 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's a need to stop the moves that have been going on for a month with consensus (many fulfilled Request Moves) and no complaints, then i believe the ArbCom will grant a emergency injunction. Someone has already bought up the issue as a "proposed temporary injunction", so i'm sure the ArbCom will take notice of it. Otherwise, i see no point in slowing down normal wikiprocesses just because a related ArbCom case is going. --`/aksha 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo on evidence page

Hey, Yaksha. I was reading over the arbitration evidence page, and I noticed a typo that you probably want to fix. You've got a subhead saying All page moves made to remove unneeded disambiguation where supported by consensus. I think you mean to say "...were supported by consensus. "Where" is referring to location, and changes the meaning: it could be read as saying "Where page moves are supported by consensus, they're fine" instead of "The page moves were supported by consensus". On a normal talk page a mistake like that wouldn't matter, and in an article I'd correct it myself, but I think we're not supposed to edit each other's comments.

I probably won't be able to present my own evidence till tomorrow (real life beckons), but what you and the others have put up so far looks great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah...uhh...i was defintely meaning "were supported by consensus". *sigh* i seem to do this an awful lot. Thanks for pointing it out to me, i'll go fix it right away. --`/aksha 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no biggie. The only reason I notice is that my father is a newspaper man, and would thrust articles with typos in my face and say, "What's wrong with this paragraph?" Copyediting is in my blood. That and printer's ink. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/a/k/User_talk%7EYaksha_d46a.html"