User talk:Athaenara/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Athænara's Talk Archive 3.  


Contents


This is an archive of discussions from December 2006 through March 2007.
Please 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.


Third opinions

Wikipedia:Third opinion

Naming conventions

Hello, Athaenara. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused, but I didn't want to get involved in the discussion at hand. I simply wanted to say a word to end the "thread", in hopes that any problems had been settled off-site of the page. Cheers, PullToOpenTalk 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, PullToOpen, for restoring the listing (diff) on Wikipedia:Third opinion. –Æ. 04:04 ... my head is spinning after your brief materialisations and disappearances and reappearances on three (have I lost count?) pages… –Æ. 04:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

→ (The context of PTO's post is now preserved in User:Athaenara/Comedy.)

Hi, I noticed that you recently moved several House episodes to include a consistent disambiguation suffix (House episode) when none is needed. You might be aware that this issue has been a matter of significant debate at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), but the general consensus is that consistent suffixes are to be avoided unless there is a compelling reason to use them which is related to the show itself. I was unable to find a discussion of a House naming convention that you mentioned in your move logs, but any such written convention should probably be changed to comply with WP:TV-NC.

If you feel strongly that the articles should use the suffixes, feel free to propose a move request through WP:RM. – Anþony  talk  13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time (over a week ago) there were something like 60 episodes, approximately 17 of which lacked the form. Whether formal or informal, I perceived it as a convention. Only later did I learn that House enthusiasts eschew the form except where essential. I disagree with the consensus as described but television is not ordinarily one of my interests and I won't be pursuing it further. Thanks for your note, I do appreciate the additional information. Athænara 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Athænara. (I hope that you and Anþony won't mind someone whose name contains only modern English letters joining the conversation!)
Just so you know, I had previously moved the House episode articles to comply with the convention at WP:TV-NC, which you probably would have seen if you had looked in the articles' history. The general convention for all television episode articles is to disambiguate only when there is another article that might have that name — so, in the case of House, we disambiguate "Sleeping Dogs Lie (House episode)" because there are several other articles that might be called Sleeping Dogs Lie, but we don't disambiguate "House vs. God" because there's nothing else that could have that name. This is in keeping with the general Wikipedia naming conventions at WP:NC and WP:DAB.
It's not a question of what "House enthusiasts" prefer, it's a matter of Wikipedia-wide convention. One aspect of the debate Anþony refers to above is the question of whether the enthusiasts of any given show should be able to carve out an exception to the general convention or not. My own understanding, which I believe to be general Wikipedia practice, is that guidelines are expressions of wide community consensus; reasonable exceptions to those guidelines can always be made, but the community as a whole should accept that those exceptions are reasonable. To date, no particular series has presented arguments for an exception which the community as a whole has accepted. In particular, the argument for "consistency" in naming has been unable to gain traction, since the same argument could be applied to any articles in a category which has both disambiguated and non-disambiguated members (such as Category:Short stories by Stephen King or Category:Famous horses). The general sentiment (supported by about 80% of editors involved in the discussion) has been that television episodes aren't really different from any other category of article when it comes to disambiguation. This consensus has been disputed by a vocal minority who do not accept it as a consensus; if you really want to dig into the matter, you can read the discussion in the archives of WT:TV-NC, beginning here.
The dispute has included some acrimony and an ArbCom case, which you're welcome to look into if you're interested. I know that you moved the House articles in good faith — I just wanted to let you know that you've inadvertently wandered into a minefield, and why you might see explosions going on around you. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Minefield *chuckle* yes, I do see that. I am old school in my preference for consistent form in related encyclopedia entries. I am also old school in my deliberate avoidance of being drawn into lengthy acrimonious disputes between deeply entrenched opponents ;-) This was far more information than I wanted or needed but, sincerely, Josiah, I welcome your friendly note! -Æ. 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

→ To keep discussion located where previously established:   Post timestamped 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC) in this talk page history moved to User talk:Fresheneesz#Your WP:3O report where first responses to that report were posted several hours ago. –Æ. 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? I was talking to you, not responding to the 3O request. >Radiant< 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that Fresh is in the habit of removing remarks from his own talk page (e.g. here) so it's disingenuous for him to complain about other people removing remarks from their talk pages. Worse, rather than removing threads, he selectively removes only parts of threads that disagree with him, thus in effect misrepresenting the discussion. >Radiant< 09:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your allegations best pertain to your own habit as previously shown in the diffs cited in the request last week for a third opinion. Fresheneesz's attitude is reasonable. Vindictive attempts to cast him in a bad light, which really should not continue, reflect far more on you than on anyone else. Athænara ✉ 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I guess I shouldn't have deleted one of his PA posts as a direct response to his removal of peoples' comments. I feel like something needs to be done about Radiant, but I've just resigned to ignoring him as much as possible. Fresheneesz 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! Athænara ✉ 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? He was alleging on 3O that I was abusive by removing talk page posts. I respond that (1) it's not abusive, and (2) he's doing the very same thing himself. I'm not alleging anything, and vindictiveness has nothing to do with it. >Radiant< 08:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, the discussion was and is grounded elsewhere. You should never have posted on my talk page. It merely exposes your mispresentation of events to deeper scrutiny which, while perhaps exactly what it needs, is probably not what you intend. Athænara ✉ 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just FUD, Athy. >Radiant< 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"FUD"?   I don't know what that means. I suspect I'll be happier if I remain in ignorance of it.
"Athy"?   Whoever you are, and you are a stranger to me, you are becoming increasingly offensive. Are you trying to discourage third opinions? Athænara ✉ 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar for Fresheneesz


    (As awarded on User talk:Fresheneesz#Pattern; preserved also on main talk page.)
To Fresheneesz, for injuries suffered in steadfast defence of Wikipedia:Civility in the face of determined attack, I award the Purple Barnstar. —Æ. ✉ 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pike disambig

Hi Athaenara, I think we've finished the pike discussion but I still had a few more questions so I moved to your talk page. First of all the changes I made were all done in good faith and from a sincere effort to keep a NPoV. I've changed it back but I still think it shouldn't be like that. Can I go to a higher editing instance then the WP3O? Like users vote or something? I'll probably loose since most people seems to know more about the fish then the weapon but I want to make my case somewhere. Now for wiki etiquette. If I want to move a page is there a recomended procedure to do so? I'll be much obliged if you'll counsel me since I'm quite a new editor. Hope it's not too much trouble for you.Nik Sage • Talk 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm already bugging you then I'll ask another question. If I want to change the name of an article where do I go to? (I know it's a similar question but not the same). Nik Sage • Talk 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on user's talk page in Pike/W:3O/Wiki etiquette section. — Æ.) 19:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tire companies

→ (Discussion pertained to information in the following list and table.)


List


Table

User IP
    
Edits
    
Redirects
    
2006
    
2007
    
Registered
203.49.235.50     50     no     Oct, Dec     Jan     no
211.29.3.48     25     no     Feb, Dec         no
211.29.3.61     16     no     Dec         no
211.29.2.142     10     yes     Dec         no
211.29.13.6     3     no     Aug, Nov         no
211.29.13.50     3     yes         Jan     no
211.29.2.233     2     no     Oct         no
211.29.13.235     1     yes     Dec         no
Mobile 01     count     no     Nov, Dec     Jan     yes


You wrote:

"Your 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) W:3O request is still on that page after more than 48 hours—has it been resolved? Athænara ✉ 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)"

and:

"LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006.
Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006.
They may be the same person. —Æ. ✉   22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)"

…I have been gone for a bit. I will check. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)…

(Lengthy, contentious, misleading post returned to sender.)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_boot_Mobile_01… Travb (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We will let the evidence speak for itself. At least three independent admins: User:Robdurbar, User:Woohookitty, and User:Wangi strongly disagree with [that user]. How much more work do I have to put into this before this editor is booted indefinitely? It is amazing and frightening how much destruction one person can make on wikipedia. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Diffs are useful because they smooth the path for admins who are studying the factual details of a problem. It's a lot of work, but all Wikipedians share the burden with admins. You could look at the Aliweb section on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for some recent (not necessarily the best) examples. —Æ. ✉ 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#Contribs)

As you may have noticed, the situation has escalated.

I have tried really, really hard to keep WP:NPA, but the "Lengthy, contentious, misleading" attacks (diff) are continuing. I placed a warning on [that user] page to attempt to stop the WP:NPA violations.

Although plenty of admins has condemed [that user] behavior, no one is assisting in this situation beyond the page protections. There seems like a collective yawn, even though this story could be potentially scandalous, like the WP:Congressional Staffer Edits.

What more can we do?

I am glad that no one helped before, because if they would have banned [that user] outright, I would have never found out that Bridgestone is editing these pages (Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone) … Should I file Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? The normal channels of reporting abuse seemed to have failed. Travb (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser is conclusive, I am going on wikibreak, you can email me if you wish :) thanks for being one of the first people after the page was protected to defend me, you deserve a barnstar, along with the four admins who helped me in this case. Travb (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... Enjoy your break... —Æ. ✉ 13:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You may want to look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01#Third opinion afresh when you return. Athænara ✉ 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
User_talk:AnonEMouse#Sockpuppet_Case … Travb (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
…[that user] is shameless. I wonder how long until it all catches up… — Æ. ✉ 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
("Do not stir" message posted by previous offender returned to sender.)
  • Account/talk page deletion logs, 14:48 & 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) "user-request, right to vanish."
  • User talk archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.

Kingsmill massacre

Thanks for you contributions to the Kingsmill massacre page. Would you mind having one more look and giving us your thoughts on the current version? Regards. Jdorney 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've done as you asked, and replied on Talk:Kingsmill massacre#Third opinion. — Athænara ✉ 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Newton Falls, Ohio

Thanks for your kind and wise words. I plan not to reply further unless NewtonFallsLeader (talk • contribs) can provide links to policies as I asked. If no one pays attention, maybe he'll go away, or proceed as you suggest. If he starts adding the link again, would my removing what I consider to be linkspam be subject to WP:3RR in your opinion? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I think for now it's best not to revert soon but rather let that issue remain in suspension, so to speak. The other guy is clearly a single purpose editor. Let him busy himself spamming the same lengthy texts on what, three talk pages and one noticeboard so far? Irritating, but there's so much more to Wikipedia—keep your cool, and keep the faith. — Athænara ✉ 05:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again - I appreciate your help. My user page was vandalized for the first time ever today by an IP whose edits to Newton Falls, Ohio I had removed (but not NewtonFallsLeader). When it rains, it pours ;-). P.S. I also think you are the first person to correctly use the umlaut in my username (I dropped it to make things easier). Congrats! Ruhrfisch 03:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (aka Rührfisch)
I'm probably not the only one who suspects a connection between that anon vandalism and the other brouhaha … — Athænara ✉ 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The thought had crossed my mind too. Ruhrfisch 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rührfisch, has this thing gone away yet? — Athænara ✉ 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The dispute has been partially resolved. User NewtonFallsLeader read at least some of your comments on this matter and seems to finally realize why his insistence on including the link does not meet WP:EL. I told him that specific subpages of the website he runs could probably be used as references for the Newton Falls, Ohio article (for example the website lists the winners of the 2006 Old Car Show, which is mentioned in the article).
Our last exchange was my explaining the differences between references and external links again. I have not heard anything from him since that on Feb. 11th, nor has he made any edits since then… I archived our past exchanges on the Newton Falls, Ohio talk page at his request (he wanted to get rid of them, but also asked how to do this). I thought he was on his way to becoming a productive editor who contributed to articles (or at least one article ;-) but I am not so sure what will happen now.
The one unresolved issue is his appeal to WP:AMA. I figured that was not a huge deal as he seems to accept the idea of what meets WP:EL now, and is perhaps an inactive account. Thanks again for your help and wise counsel. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do to be of assistance, Ruhrfisch 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. The user hasn't edited the WP:AMA page in the past three weeks or so—I guess he'd withdraw it if he knew how. — Æ. ✉ 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you've archived our discussion about this. In any case you may be interested in the current poll at Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio. Or you may wisely run the other way and never look back ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch 11:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, archived too soon, I see! (Brought it back.) — Athænara ✉ 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And back it goes. I have Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio and the AMA page on my watchlist. — Æ. ✉ 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

There is no talk page because we've been battling it out via edit summaries. Hbdragon88 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

→The post above was in response to my post to User talk:Hbdragon88:
"In re your listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion—there was no talk page link provided to direct WP:3O to the location of the dispute. — Athænara ✉ 08:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"

If editors aren't discussing their issues in a civil manner, the dispute doesn't fulfill the basic good faith stipulation on the project page. Surely you didn't expect a WP:3O editor to participate in the edit war? Yikes! IFF two editors are engaging in civil discussion, cannot agree, and seek a third opinion, then the dispute qualifies for WP:3O. — Athænara ✉ 08:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The way I see it, if the WP:30 editor disagrees with me, I'll drop the issue entirely. If the editor agrees with me, I hope that the other editor will also drop the issue. Hbdragon88 09:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(Template proposed for deletion—result was delete 06:47, 1 March 2007 UTC.)

X Japan

Hi, since you have previously provided your input at Talk: X Japan, I was wondering if you could do the same at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkcat21. The X Japan article has recently been unprotected and the other editor involved in the initial dispute, Darkcat21, has since engaged in yet another edit war, (re)adding content based on sources which have been disputed by multiple editors. Since several means of dispute resolution have already been exhausted (such as pointing out policies, requesting third opinions and temporary page protection), a request for comment appears to be the next logical step. But there are few editors at least somewhat familiar with the situation, that's why I'm contacting you - I hope that's not a problem. Regards - Cyrus XIII 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My contributions to that discussion (here and here, about personal websites as sources) were very minor, but I will take a look at the Rfc as you suggest. — Athænara ✉ 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cyrus—sorry I took so long to see that there was a niche there for my minor role in the thing—I posted on the RFC page a few minutes ago. — Athænara ✉ 10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I really liked your "For the user to not treat fundamental Wikipedia principles as if they were a nuisance" line! — Æ. ✉ 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! That line actually used to end with "...and act in accordance with them in the future, or not all." but I left it to ShadowHalo to decide whether that "or not at all" bit was too harsh and he opted to remove it. Now, I really hope something good comes out of that RFC. As you might have noticed, there has been unrest on Talk:X Japan again. Great to have my behavior called "unreasonable" by a newcomer to the issue, huh? But that editor is probably still a little sore from a different dispute I had with him regarding a style issue. Take care - Cyrus XIII 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/h/User_talk%7EAthaenara_Archive_3_2122.html"