User talk:Elonka/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

960

Thanks for making the correction. I am just getting into starting to work on establishments/disestablishments and wasn't sure how to proceed. Thank you. The period of Chinese history I am working on right now is very complex with kingdoms coming and going. Your pointer will help. Thanks.

Ludahai 05:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Just a thought

I've dropped a note to the original author of Earth Rights Institute about the prod you've started. He's obviously a worthwhile editor even though that old article looks like it deserves a prod. --Mereda 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

confused

Hi,

i was hoping maybe you could help me. I added the "Boston Blackie Films list. And I received the uncategorized indication. I'm not sure what I should catagorize now. It has films by genre category and mystery fiction. I tried adding mystery films thriller films crime films but they won't show up when i try and change them. It seems that maybe there should be a detective films genre but I can't find it on any of the category lists.

Oh, by the way, I love Wikipedia, I haven't been on it long so maybe I don't understand how I should categorize it.

Thanks Philbertgray 08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh i think I figured it out. I didn't add info to the Boston Blackie book cover - I corrected that. Is that what was needed? Philbertgray 09:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Debbie Liebling

I've already proposed this page for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Liebling. Sounds like you agree. jesup 14:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I work in telecom, not games (I did once in the mid-80's, though). (We design personal home videophones - [1]) jesup 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Added it to my watchlist and weighed in on a couple. My only game work was porting Sub Battle Simulator from the Mac to the Amiga in 1987-1988; but I've been a gamer since I was a teenager playtesting at SPI (boardgames). jesup 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Acknowledged

Quick note to acknowledge your note. In all honesty, anything I'd say with regards to the recent issues would simply be repeating myself and a further waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My door's always open. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila RfM

Hello Elonka. Did you plan on submitting the RfM ? If you aren't dead set on doing it, I'd like to write it up (I'd create it in a sandbox so you could check it over before it is submitted). Drop me a line. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

cohesiveFT

Hi Elonka, what is your problem with CohesiveFT. Very confused, please can we discuss. Thank-you, Monadic.

Hi, thanks for your reply, I have replied on the cohesiveFT discussion page -- Monadic.

PRODWarning

FYI, per step 3 of WP:PROD#Nominating a proposed deletion, it's generally a civil gesture to alert an author that you've added a {{prod}} tag to their article. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The "cohesiveFT" mentioned above here. If you generally use {{PRODWarning}}, then disregard my message. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding WP:NPA?

Re: this edit followed by your response, it sounds like maybe you need to read WP:NPA, specifically WP:NPA#Examples that are not personal attacks. Ned Scott's edit falls very squarely into the second bullet point of that section. If you'd like to point out which bullet point of WP:NPA#Examples of personal attacks you think applies to his comment, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Re:Marcus Atkinson

Doesn't seem notable. I recommend prodding.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Uncategorized

I see you've been marking articles as uncategorized, which is helpful. However I should mention that in my experience mature articles that are uncategorized have been vandalized. In those instances it's better to track down the old good versions rather than recategorize them. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not your responsibility to uncover old vandalism, but if you have the opportunity to do so then it's a help. I'm hoping to find the time to follow your footsteps and check the article histories. The one that I looked at, Estherville, Iowa, had categories, interwikis, etc, in an old version.[2]. I wish there were easier ways to find, correct, and prevent vandalism. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Copyright Society of the U.S.A.

Grr, you tagged one of my articles! I forgot to go back and categorize it; I( was having a brain fart at the time. Thanks tho, because it reminded me and I fixed it. Do you ever become territorial about articles you write? I nerver have before but earlier tonight someone changed one article I wrote and made it very unencyclopedic. Bah!, it bugged me! I spend too much time on Wiki ;-) PS... Dunno if you remember but I left a message on your talk page once before. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tirupathi Brahmotsavam

Tirupathy Brahmotsavalu is regional, and we want to keep the topic as much national as possible, including the use of som common terminology. So, i'm going to revert the article name to Brahmotsavam, while redirecting the Tirupathi Brahmotsavalu to it.

if you have points to the contrary kindly use the discussion page.

Balajiviswanathan 04:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Stop with the moves?

Serge, please stop with the move requests. We are obviously still discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), and it is not appropriate for you to be jumping in and moving a bunch of articles without consensus. --Elonka 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please stop with the transparent and borderline pathetic delay tactics. I am impressed by your contributions, but your position and arguments on this are disappointing. Consensus was reached several days ago and lots of people have been making moves since then. --Serge 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Your case would be greatly assisted if you took my suggestion and looked for people who feel their vote was tainted by changing the poll wording. Then even I would support re-starting the poll. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Me too. --Serge 08:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I apologize if you think I've been uncivil. I'm simply trying to stress that you're coming across, to many of us, as being unreasonable on this issue. I think everyone understands the issues and knows where we all stand. Your position is reasonable - you want editors of episodes of TV series to be able to create their own consistent naming conventions, and you want their right to do so specified in the guidelines. The problem is that very few agree with you. We believe the higher priority is to abide by the general Wikipedia naming conventions that apply to all articles in Wikipedia, and don't see a reason to make a broad explicit exception for episode articles. Okay, so we disagree. Further, you believe the previous poll on this issue to be invalid. Fine, then work to get consensus on a new poll. Currently, you clearly do not have that, and you're not helping your case by ignoring the various arguments being made both to address your general argument, and also to refute your reasons to have another poll. Those really need to be at least addressed, if not refuted, before you can hope to achieve consensus to even have another poll, much less have one in which your position prevails. --Serge 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Request to unprotect

May u please unprotect this page S. Jithesh and allow to recreate the article with more references and sources...? Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Mischaracterization

Fair enough. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Toward consensus in TV land

Elonka, I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your input over at TV:NC, and I want very much to better see your side of the argument so we can achieve a true consensus, and not a supermajority. I have no real opinion about redoing the poll; if we re-vote, I know that you and Matthew will oppose the currently-stated guideline, and that's enough for me to try to continue finding a solution.

Since you didn't directly respond to Josiah's summary of arguments and commentary, I think I had assumed that you were giving a tacit approval (or that you were just fed up with the durned thing). Since that wasn't the case, I would genuinely like to know what your specific disagreement is with it, if any. I sense from your recent comments that you feel pre-emptive disambiguation to be appropriate in the case of a series where most of the articles are disambiguated already, in order to promote a consistent naming scheme. You also seem to be in favor of allowing long-standing exceptions to the guideline (Star Trek, for example) to remain if the editors working on that project choose to do so. Josiah's summary, I think, addresses both of these situations:

  • Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
    • Precedents are useful, but only if they have good reasons behind them. Furthermore, only decisions by Jimbo, the ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation Board are binding — beyond that, there are no binding decisions. If a consensus among Wikipedians is contrary to the decision of a WikiProject, the larger consensus should be followed. (It goes without saying that all WikiProject members are welcome in the larger decision-making process, and indeed the members of the Star Trek WikiProject have been invited to join this discussion.) Given this, the precedent has value only insofar as its reasoning can be explained.
  • Consistency: linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes... and categories look more consistent.
    • This is an aesthetic judgment, and one that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." This would indicate that it is incorrect to name an article, for example, A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) when A Fistful of Datas is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
    • Furthermore, the "ease of linking" concern is adequately addressed by the recommendation to create redirects with the appropriate suffixes.

I think Josiah dealt with these issues pretty well, but I am very interested in what you think. Specifically, I would like to know if you feel he left something out or did not address either point satisfactorily. I hope you know by now that you and I are in complete agreement concerning guidelines on Wikipedia: quite simply, they are all optional, and TV:NC is no more policy than any other Wikiproject. Editors can only "enforce" guidelines by editing articles, and if those edits are reverted then it should be brought up on the pertinent talk page. With that in mind, I think if we can come up with a good guideline that everyone (not just "most everyone") supports, it will make people want to adhere to the guideline, and make the guideline that much stronger. Forgive me for bringing this to your user page, but I thought it might be a little quieter place to have a civil, constructive discussion about it. Feel free to reply here if you're so inclined; I'll keep it on my watchlist. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While I have nothing against AIM, my off-wiki life is pretty persistent (I'm actually typing right now with one finger while holding an incredibly squirmy eight-month-old) and "rapid-fire" discussion is unfortunately fairly hard to maintain, even in "real life." My computer time at home is pretty sporadic, but if an AIM-friendly opportunity presents itself, I'll drop you a line. In the meantime I am still interested in hearing you out with an open mind and a quiet room... :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 02:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, thank you for being patient with my slowness in communicating. :)

I have posted my latest suggestion at new poll wording, and I would appreciate your thoughts as to whether it needs any further tweaking.

I think your poll wording sounds fine, but I confess that I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, because I think the poll will further illustrate something we already know: that there is disagreement. It seems to me that you and Matthew may represent many others who have the same disagreements but who are not contributing to the discussion, and perhaps a new poll would better illustrate that. Assuming, then, that a new poll would show that there are those who disagree with the current guideline, How do we proceed? WP:CON suggests "polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus."

Also, as for Josiah's summary, I'm not entirely certain which of his posts that you want me to reply to... There's so much noise in there, that I may have lost track of a civil question in the mix.

You are correct in that there is a tremendous amount of discussion to wade through at WP:TV-NC. I've linked to Josiah's well-written summary above, but let me quote the relevant section here:

"...let's examine [the three types of disagreements with the guideline] one at a time.

  • Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
    • Precedents are useful, but only if they have good reasons behind them. Furthermore, only decisions by Jimbo, the ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation Board are binding — beyond that, there are no binding decisions. If a consensus among Wikipedians is contrary to the decision of a WikiProject, the larger consensus should be followed. (It goes without saying that all WikiProject members are welcome in the larger decision-making process, and indeed the members of the Star Trek WikiProject have been invited to join this discussion.) Given this, the precedent has value only insofar as its reasoning can be explained. Which leads us to the remaining two arguments:
  • Consistency: linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes... and categories look more consistent.
    • This is an aesthetic judgment, and one that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." This would indicate that it is incorrect to name an article, for example, A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) when A Fistful of Datas is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
    • Furthermore, the "ease of linking" concern is adequately addressed by the recommendation to create redirects with the appropriate suffixes.
  • Context: it is convenient to include series context with an article's title... and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists.
    • It is not the function of article naming to provide context. The article itself does that, ideally in its first line. Nor is it the function of article naming to categorize articles. The category system does that. As I argued above,
If I came upon a contextless link to, say, Adios Butler (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on Harness racing, then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article Adios Butler (horse).

From my point of view, the objections to these reasons are all much stronger than the reasons themselves. I would greatly appreciate any responses to these arguments, and any further reasons that I have missed."

So I think my questions for you are these:
  1. Josiah named three possible suggested reasons for "show X" to not follow the guideline on TV-NC: Precedent (the articles have used a different naming scheme for a long time), Consistency (using pre-emptive disambiguation allows for more predictability in linking) and Context (an episode name does not provide enough context by itself). Can you think of any other reasons for a TV show to not follow the TV-NC guideline?
  2. I think Josiah's answers to each of those reasons are well-founded and illustrate valid points against making those exceptions. Do you disagree with any of the answers Josiah gave (or summarized) above?
I agree that many of your posts on TV-NC have been met with responses in a less-than-civil tone, and that's unfortunate. However, I hope you can see that Josiah (as he wrote below) and I are keenly interested in finding out what your specific disagreement to the guideline is and how it can be addressed so we can achieve consensus. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Elonka; you've made some excellent points in that post, and I'd like to take some time to ruminate upon them. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Consensus and civility

Hi, Elonka. I was away for a couple of days, and noticed that in the conversation at TV:NC, in response to a couple of people who asked why you hadn't responded to my comments, you said:

I've been asked why I don't specifically reply to everyone's comments here, and one reason is, that as soon as someone resorts to personal attacks or uncivility, I tend to ignore anything else they have to say (as is recommended in WP:CIVIL). So if you want your voice to be heard, please concentrate on being polite, being civil, and showing that you have as much respect for the opinions of editors who disagree with you, as respect for the opinions of those who agree with you.

I hope that I am not among the editors whom you have put in this category. I did not mean to attack you, or to be uncivil to you or anyone else in the discussion. If there is any specific comment that offended you, please let me know — I believe that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are two of our most important principles, and if I have violated either of them I am extremely sorry. If I have offended you, I don't know what it was that I did — I don't consider identifying you in the debate is incivil or a personal attack. My tone may occasionally betray a certain impatience, but I hope it never sinks to the level of incivility.

TobyRush (whose equanimity in this discussion I have a great deal of respect for) has quoted the most relevant bits of my posts above, and he's linked to my full comment. I also made a comment replying to yours at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Summary of naming issue, which I think is worth your consideration. To make it easier for you, I'll repeat it here, since the conversation has moved on since then:

Elonka, the existing consensus on this page is not based on the poll, but on the extensive conversation that has followed it. You are correct that the poll was altered, and some of the poll-related discussion may have been unclear, but there has been a great deal of discussion since then. Remember that polling is evil, and Wikipedia prefers discussion over voting. Accordingly, I take the many, many kilobytes of discussion into greater account than the poll, which was only a preliminary gauge of opinions. Please read Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote#Policy and guidelines — although that page has not been approved, it is an accurate description of how policies and guidelines are formed on Wikipedia.
I have yet to see any response to my summary of the arguments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions. In this section, you have merely restated the arguments which I believe I and others have successfully argued against. All your arguments can be summarized by "consistency", "precedent" and "context", none of which are supported by other Wikipedia policies. "Common sense and the occasional exception" is a completely different matter from establishing a guideline which codifies those exceptions.
I also oppose having another poll on this subject, as I feel that the discussion (not the poll) has reached an adequate consensus, and we should move on to the next stage. You and Matthew Fenton are the only editors who disagree with the existing consensus, and consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Let's move on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading that, I can see some of the "impatience" I mentioned above. I believe that came from the fact that you had not responded to my earlier comment, which took a fair amount of time and consideration. However, if you had categorized me as incivil and thus to be ignored, that would explain why you had not responded. That's understandable — I hope you can also understand my perspective. I want to be able to discuss the issue of the guideline, and what I believe to be the consensus on the page, without being bogged down in personal misunderstandings. Is that OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for responding to my comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions. I have replied to your response, examining each of your comments carefully.
You have been arguing for a new poll, but I don't think that you have responded to the idea that I and others have raised that although the poll was flawed, the discussion following the poll was clear, and that discussion takes precedence over polling. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this at WT:TV-NC. I would also like a personal response to the suggestion you made that I had been uncivil or had personally attacked you. I was serious in my comment above, and I would appreciate it greatly if you would let me know what I have done to offend you. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

Thanks for the heads up. Why aren't you an admin yet? - RoyBoy 800 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great author photo; never knew cryptology could look so chic. - RoyBoy 800 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Consensus?

Elonka, as long as you continue to ignore salient points made by others in the discussion, including those made by me about issues with your proposed wording from yesterday, I am going to continue assuming we do have consensus, and will operate accordingly. We should have gone through several iterations of wording by now, but after your initial suggestion, and my response, progress has halted on that front. There does not seem to be much interest in actually getting another poll going, even by you. You give little reason to believe otherwise. This is a big waste of time with no real issues being discussed. --Serge 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Stop the moves?

Elonka, please stop telling me what to do in Wikipedia. If you can find an administrator who is willing to agree with you that consensus has not been established regarding the episode naming guidelines at WP:TV-NC, and will post a request for everyone to stop renaming until consensus is established, then I will abide by that request. But when one clearly biased non-admin editor makes that request, I feel no obligation to comply. Much of what you are doing comes across as sour grapes delay tactics. On a slightly personal note, these tactics are not helping your case for ever becoming an admin, if that's still a desire of yours. I don't know how often someone can be nominated, but if you were nominated right now, I for one would be a person who would vote oppose because of the sour grapes delay tactics in which you have engaged over the last week or so. For your own sake, please stop. Not one person, not one, has said his or her support vote in the last poll about the guidelines would have been oppose had he or she not been "confused" by "all the changes and chaos". Not even one. The discussion clarifies beyond any reasonable doubt that there is consensus for the current guidelines. Why are you sinking yourself like this? Just stop. For your own sake, just stop. You can do it. --Serge 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, as I'm sure you're well aware, multiple good faith editors have been calling for a new poll. Even Josiah Rowe, an admin, has agreed. Please respect the process, and let's run a new and clean poll. We can continue to argue about this for days, or we can just agree on wording, open a fresh poll, and move forward. --Elonka 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware that in the mind of Elonka "Even Josiah Rowe, an admin, has agreed [about calling for a new poll]". In the real world, however, he wrote, "I will support a new poll, in the interests of clearing the air. I don't really think it's necessary". That hardly qualifies as agreeing with calling for a new poll, particularly in order to have a "clean" one (as if the last one wasn't clean). --Serge 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this is on my talk page from Josiah Rowe: "I see nothing wrong with Serge continuing to bring pages into compliance with [the current guidelines]". You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole, Elonka. Please stop. Just stop. --Serge 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Buffy Waltrip

Hey, you said see the talk page but I can't find anything about it. I was just wondering what "tone" the page about Buffy should be written it? I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do. And the source for the page is written at the bottom and there are no other sources. I know Buffy personally and that's how I got my information.

Also, I have a question. There is a user who has been going around to every related nascar page and basically saying buffy got everything she wanted in life because she is pretty and she is a trophy wife and blah blah blah. They are very bitter against her and also wrote lies about stuff that happened between her and her husband. Is there anything that can be done about that? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.142.76 (talk • contribs) 00:05, November 16, 2006

Regarding your WT:RFCU message

I haven't said who my alternate account is because you didn't ask. You can find the one other account I have here. It is used (well, it will be used eventually) to whittle away at the list of Unwatched Pages which, similar to the Uncategorized Pages, only shows the first 1,000. You'll likely never see an edit from it unless I forget to logout. If you do, you'll notice the user ID doesn't hide it very well. You'll also notice the user ID's user page has a tag on it saying it's an alternate account. If you decide to proceed with an WP:RFCU against me, let me know and I'll be happy to hunt down any IP addresses I've used - there are probably 3 or 4 different regions and networks.

As I said in #Acknowledged here, I told you that you can put a message on my talk page and I'll likely respond. I think the WT:TV-NC thing is ridiculous and you know who I think is to blame for that - but that doesn't make me an unapproachable monster. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)



Re: Civility C

Yes, there are serious "civility" issues with Mr. Ace. Anyway, no problem on the fix. Glad to see your post too. Reynoldsrapture 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Specifically, note where it says this:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.

If you think I said anything about you that does not qualify as "civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character", please let me know what specifically I said that you feel is uncivil or involves your personal character. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your accusation of personal attack on my talk page. --Serge 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Television episode naming conventions

It is precisely because there was no consensus that I asked, however, lacking consensus on television articles in particular, WP:D would seem to thus be the standard to follow. I draw your attention to this quote in particular: "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." --BlueSquadronRaven 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am at it, I will echo the sentiments of others here on your page. Do not presume to tell me how to edit when everything I have done regarding individual episode articles has been within existing, undisputed guidelines and treated as such by other editors and real admins. I have been and will continue to be bold. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity

Please realize that just because you disagree with something, that doesn't imply it's not consensual. Please give it a rest for now. The debate has lasted for weeks, has drawn in a substantial amount of editors and comments, and most people are in agreement on the issue. It is simply not constructive to the encyclopedia to extend the debate indefinitely. (Radiant) 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There is already a clean discussion, and has been for several weeks. A poll is not a discussion, and issues such as these are generally not resolved by polls, and calling for Yet Another Poll at this point is entirely pointless. By the way I should point out that you have repeatedly ignored or dodged several questions by other people on the matter; if you're really interested in discussion, you should see to that. (Radiant) 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You invited several groups that were already aware, and made announcements in places where it was already announced before. That seems pretty pointless to me. People can already post on a talk page without there being a poll. Indeed, another poll means all previous participants must once more reiterate their position when those are already abundantly clear. That, also, seems pretty pointless to me.
    • You have failed to answer (1) why a poll was necessary in the first place, (2) why you believe there was insufficient input, (3) why the poll was tainted since all involved were asked and none agree with you there, (4) why you have changed the poll while it was ongoing, since you later object to such changes, (5) what you seek to accomplish with a new poll, (6) where the alleged earlier consensus for your side is, (7) where the outrage is from the Wikiprojects, considering a two-person revert war is not an outrage, (8) why you interpret people's comments as supporting you when this is clearly not the case, and (9) why this entire issue is such a big deal in at all.
    • So no, you do not have my support. You are asking for things that were already there several weeks ago. You are focusing on bureaucracy instead of productive discussion, forcing people to repeat themselves over and over again, and refusing to acknowledge a consensus because you disagree with it. Once more, consensus is not unanimity. (Radiant) 09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • What I meant was not why you believe a second poll is necessary (indeed, that is clear); I wonder why you think the first poll was necessary. Issues such as this are not generally resolved by voting. Indeed, in this case, most of the mess we're having is caused by that poll. The discussion we've had since then has been much more productive, so I'd say that at this point, more discussion is good but more polling is bad.
      • I realize that you're not alone in your opinion, but you seem to be the only person unwilling to accept that consensus appears to lie on the other side (indeed, that is what I meant by "sole").
      • Note that I am not adverse to advertising the debate and getting more people in (I think it's pointless by now, not harmful), but I am adverse to forcing that debate into the form of a poll. Also, making a poll for only new contributors is confusing, because the result will then not be representative of all contributors, only the new ones (and to convolute further, some old contributors will undoubtedly vote in it anyway).
      • By the way, I'm not following you around, I simply have half of Wikispace on my watchlist (or at least, the bits related to policy/guidelines and ongoing related debate). I apologize for any perceived incivilty on my part, and assure you such that was not my intention. (Radiant) 10:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, I don't believe you've been uncivil per se (as opposed to e.g. that poll about you personally, which was inappropriate). Anyway. I know you didn't start the first vote, but I think we agree that the vote was problematic. Since two wrongs don't make a right, this isn't likely to be fixed by a new vote (hence, discussion instead). The problem with the RfC section as you wrote it is that it looks like a vote. In effect, it asks for comments, but at the same time restricts what kind of comments people should give. The structure isn't helpful, and neither is it common practice for RFCs to work like that. Since you've already given a summary at the places where you advertised this, people can use that as a basis for their comments, which they can place in any section of the talk page but most likely at the bottom. People don't need structure to comment.
        • WP:LOST is a deeper issue. The problem is that the project page doesn't indicate how consensus was reached, or between which users, or indeed that there is any. Hence, it is open to claims by others that there is no such consensus. It may be the case that the off-wiki discussion accidentally excluded some people who believe they should have had a say in it (I wouldn't know, I wasn't part the debate). The underlying issue is that Wikipedia cannot be legislated. It is not uncommon for a small group on Wikipedia to decide something and, in implementing it, to come in touch with a larger group that turns out to disagree with the decision. In effect, this means that the small group thought they had consensus when in fact they did not. This is a consequence of the design of Wikipedia, and a corollary is that a WikiProject cannot have jurisdiction over the articles it writes, because the entire concept of jurisdiction doesn't exist here.
        • (Radiant) 11:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Re: WikiProjects

Please feel free to copy my comments anywhere you think they'd be useful. I might stop by the discussion myself, at some point; but TV episodes are rather far outside my usual editing area, and I'm rather hesitant to interject myself into a discussion on a topic that I don't know well enough to comment sensibly on. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You can quote me if you'd like, no problem there. (Though I'd request it be accompanied by a diff link to my original post, just as an issue of providing context.) Like Kirill above, I don't do TV episodes so I wouldn't feel comfortable giving direct input. --tjstrf talk 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My position

Looking at the page it looks like you got my opinion listed accurately. I prefer the suffix but if not at least the redirects are nice. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Accusation of sockpuppetry

Elonka, you've said on more than one occasion that Yaksha (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet. Why do you think this? Yaksha has edits going back to December 2005. If Yaksha is a sockpuppet, he or she is a long-established one, and one that has even taken the time to help out at the Help and Reference desks. If you think Yaksha is a sockpuppet, you're free to file a request for checkuser. But unless you can make a case, please stop making unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry. It just adds more acrimony to an already tense discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


If you think that Yaksha and I are the same user, here's something that might show you otherwise, Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#Spoiler redirects that reveal true identities. I'm really not sure what the point would be for someone to argue with themselves.

As I've said to you before, I'd support you in a checkuser. I've even given you my IP address (69.252.129.142). I once used the account User:Nedscott (literally, once) and then forgot about it and created my current one. I have a bot account at User:NedBot. There's not much more I can do to show that I am me and only me. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yaksha's comment on Woohookitty's talk page does seem to confirm that he's operating more than one account, but as long as he (or she) isn't using multiple accounts in the discussion, that's OK per WP:SOCK. If Yaksha has another account that's solely editing articles about Liberace or something, that's fine. If Yaksha is also participating in the WT:TV-NC discussion under another name, that's not. But I really don't see any evidence of that, and I don't think it helps our discussion to make accusations like that without solid evidence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Aside from a checkuser result (which is not within my control, since I've sent out three requests so far, but without reply), what would you regard as evidence? --Elonka 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Josiah Rowe#Sockpuppetry)
Ideally, it would be a checkuser result. Failing that, some specific diffs pointing towards similar wording or typographical/grammatical quirks indicating the same human being behind the ID. And frankly, it would be useful if you had some indication of whose sockpuppet you think Yaksha is. The vague suspicions here don't seem to add up to much, in my judgment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Shopping centre articles

I see that you are editing a significant number of shopping centre articles. I noticed you removed a citation for the Westfield Eastgardens article because it was from the corporate site. Just wondering is there a policy on this and if you could direct me to it? Todd661 08:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Sorry to bother you again though. I had a look at these and it appears to me that using corporate sites is ok if caution is used when using them. I'm pretty sure I didn't overly rely on them. especially now - I've added a few more for that particular site - but also readded that one. I know what you mean though with them shopping centre pages, some of them are just plain embaressing. That is my recent crusade - to try to get some of them up to scrath and others deleted...I've been midly successful. Todd661 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I also thought I'd let you know that Rebecca has reverted 3 7 of your edits today. Todd661 10:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith

I thought I'd bring to your attention that you've been accused of "bad faith" on an AFD you started, without a reason or evidence being cited. I strongly disagree that you've acted in bad faith here but thought you might like to tell your side as well. Seraphimblade 10:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Paul Andrews (magician)

I can see that you removed links to this page when it was deleted having been voted(?) not notable. It's back on line with every 'proposed deletion' flag, being removed almost immediately by an anonymous user. I've just added a flag again but any suggestions? —JuanTierpol (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2006

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that there was already consensus to delete, and I've flagged the article accordingly: [3]. Hopefully this should address things. If not, we can file a (third) AfD. Also, just FYI, once a {{prod}} tag has been removed once, it shouldn't be re-added -- the next step is {{afd}}. Just one of those little Wiki things.  :) --Elonka 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What she said. It's been WP:CSD#G4'ed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Protecting pages against policy

Some time ago you posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admin protecting an article against policy but didn't get any response. Some recent incidents of what I believe to be administrators protecting pages against policy have come to my attention, so I am trying to get a discussion started on the issues. I'd appreciate your contributions, both at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admin protecting an article against policy and at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins protecting their own pages. —Psychonaut 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Article on faluche

I saw that you had edited the article on the faluche, and I also see from your user page that you can speak French. The faluche article appears to have been machine-translated from French, or written by someone who is not a native English speaker. I did a lot of work on it to try to clean up some of the English translation, but I am not a French speaker, so some of it was not clear to me as to how it should be translated. If you have the time and inclination, perhaps you could have a go at it. The article is actually pretty interesting and needs to have the English cleaned up somewhat by a bilingual French-English speaker. The article also exists in the French Wikipedia if that would help with the translations. •DanMS 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Antoni Dunin

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Articles_for_deletion We could not yet find any reasons for not deleting the article. What for was the Virtuti Militari? If you can write this story we have a reason for not deleting the biography. While the story of his children is of interest to his descendants, as an encyclopedia we have to strictly inform only on subjects of public interest and this is limited to the deeds and biography of Mr. Dunin. We can only briefly summarize that his children escaped via their uncle (a church dignitary) and descendants live in England/USA? now. contrary to the current structure of the article this is the least important point for the public interest in Antoni Dunin.

pl:Order Virtuti Militari doesn't lists an Antoni Dunin among the recipients. My Polish is not sufficient to know whether the list is complete. Wandalstouring 05:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


anything i can do?

Hola, Elonka. I am very much in agreement with your position and wish that I had been aware of the discussion so I could have backed u up. I have only been editing a few months and on Lost stuff for much less than that, and I didn't wander into this discussion until the last few days. This discussion is way long, and way thick, and in way numerous locations, so if you get a sec let me know:

1. Am I understanding the issue/history right? My understanding: there was a naming conventions discussion where some folx decided to strictly enforce the general guideline of only disambiguating in tv episode titles when absolutely necessary. Some agree (because they want to exactly follow the letter of the guideline) and others don't (because they see value in consistency for readers and editors).
2. Is there a new poll? Will there be a new one? If so, where?
3. Is there currently an actual discussion about the main tv naming guidelines, or is that closed? If so, can there be a new one? If so, where?

INMO, it is a bad idea to strictly follow the letter of the guideline (policy?) for TV episodes because it does not make sense. All episodes of a show should have a consistent form, and I don't think this is a "foolish consistency". It helps editors make links. It helps readers by making it more likely that links will work. It eliminates further arguing and guessing over what should be disambiguated, it eliminates the problem of having to later disambiguate when some other article is later added. It just makes sense. And since wikipedia is a community-based project, there is flexibility - rules, guidelines, policies, they are open for discussion and debate about what makes sense. Plus, a general principle from the Naming Conventions page reads: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." That right there says to me that predictability of linking carries some weight, while i have seen some posts that are trying to say that concerns about linking predictability have no relevance whatsoever. I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as some are trying to make it out to be, but then again I may not be understanding the issues properly. So what next? Thanks for your efforts. Riverbend 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and taking the time to read through the rather voluminous discussions. :) I also appreciate your moral support at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) -- the whole thing has definitely gotten very uncivil, which has not been conducive to encouraging outside comment.
To answer your questions:
1. Yes, I think you're understanding the issue very well.
2. There is not yet a new poll. I've tried starting one a couple times, but I just get reverted.[4][5] I'm hoping that there will be a new poll, which will take place on that page.
3. Yes, there's still an open and active discussion, again on that page. Feel free to start any new sections that you want, or reply to anything on the page. The more outside opinions, the better.
If you want to take the time to do this, what I would recommend is that you start a new section like, "An outsider's view" or something, and summarize what you've learned, for the benefit of other people, like you, who may be reading the discussion but aren't sure how to join in. That would be helpful both to new folks (and I'd like to do everything possible to encourage other editors to participate), and also to the existing editors in the discussion. Also, if you're a member of any other WikiProjects or television discussion areas (like "List of episodes" articles) where there are editors that you think would be interested in this discussion, please be sure that there's a link to the discussion, posted somewhere on the page, to ensure that they're aware of it. Lastly, if you can think of any good compromise position to the debate, feel free to suggest something!
Thanks, and if you have any questions, let me know, --Elonka 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Shopping centres, continued

What on earth is driving your continued drive to exterminate each and every shopping centre article, regardless of notability? I'm sick and tired of having to spend my every moment having to fight rearguard actions to stop good stuff from being deleted when I could be spending it writing better stuff.

It seems as if you won't stop until every article is either a) tagged with some sort of cleanup tag, b) referenced and written to the absolute best standards of any on this project, standards not expected of any other topic of article, or c) deleted. This isn't helping the project in the slightest. Rebecca 11:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My main interest is seeing every article categorized -- I just do the speedy-deletions and prods and AfDs as a side-hobby.  :) I'm not against shopping mall articles. I am against articles about non-notable businesses, which have no references aside from the business's own website, and make no claim of notability aside from being "a big mall". So yeah, I will not stop until every article is (1) properly categorized; and (2) has reliable sources which confirm notability. If both of those are covered though, then I really don't care that much about it. BTW, if articles had proper categories to begin with, they wouldn't be showing up at Special:Uncategorizedpages, which is why my attention is even being brought to them in the first place. --Elonka 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see them referenced too, but I'm sick of seeing them placed under threat of deletion if they're not, which is a double standard that applies to no other articles on Wikipedia. I'm also sick of these judgements being made without even the slightest effort to ascertain notability - while I've left a number of your tags on malls which did appear to be of local interest, you've nominated one of the most notable shopping centres in Australia (Bondi Junction) for deletion without any attempt to actually look into the individual case. Rebecca 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be getting merged at the very least? Even WP:LOCAL advocates that. There's really no reason to bring any of them to AFD - the choices should be keep or merge which means they should be hashed out on the talk pages, not AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A merge is a possible, sure, but if every time a {{merge}}, {{local}}, or {{prod}} tag is added, it just gets reverted [6][7][8][9], and the article's sources and notability are already questionable, then the best way to proceed is to an AfD, and let the community decide. If you'll check the history on most of the articles that I've been nominating, I usually try several other methods of dealing with the article first, with AfD just being used as a last resort. --Elonka 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But if you apply a merge tag, it's an inference that you don't even think it should be deleted - you think it should be merged, i.e. the content saved somewhere. AFD is not the next logical step after applying a merge tag. It's self-contradictory, esp. if you never actually merge the contents anywhere before it gets deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that a {{db-spam}} tag is actually the recommended way to deal with these, per WP:CSD and the following Signpost article: [10] . So by suggesting {{merge}} or {{local}}, I'm actually trying to be gentle. Ditto with {{prod}} and {{afd}} which at least give the article a chance to prove itself, rather than heading straight out the door with G11. Please WP:AGF: I'm not tagging these articles because I hate them -- I just want them to come into compliance with anti-spam rules. I only use AfD as a last resort, when all other methods have failed. --Elonka 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You're making an awfully broad interpretation of G11, and one which, based on Jimbo's comments at the time of its implemention, I don't believe can actually be sustained. It was meant to deal with actual cases of spam - cases where a company or a staff member had posted an article to promote their product/company. It was not, however, meant to cover anything vaguely commercial which you personally deem to be non-notable. There is nothing in the Signpost article you referred to which supports that interpretation, and I would not hestitate to undo such a speedy deletion on the grounds that it was against policy. Furthermore, I have not reverted all your applications of local tags - simply those where they were being hit purely because they were unreferenced shopping centre articles, rather than shopping centres that actually appeared to be of only local interest. Finally, {{prod}} and {{afd}} are not a substitute for Wikipedia:Cleanup, which is where many of the articles you take issue with should be headed. Rebecca 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Who said I didn't AGF? I see what you're saying and it makes sense - and I even agree with merging many of them. I'm just saying that merging and deleting are contradictory concepts and you've proposed both. The content is probably good to save somewhere - at least in an abbreviated form - but you don't need AFD to do that. As far as WP:CSD#G11, that's if the article needed a total rewrite because it's such a filthy spammy mess. For the few of your mall AFDs, I don't see where that's the case - but that's always a matter of interpretation. I'll sometimes chop db-spam tagged articles down to stubs if they appear to be notable. Stubs are cheap and usually easy. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Can we please just all get along? All of the involved editors are committed and there's no need to get into a fight over shopping centers/centres. Perhaps there are too many or not enough articles about malls, arcades, shopping districts, promenades, supermarkets, etc. Merge, stop deleting, slow down, or do whatever it takes to get peace. We needn't ruffle each other over this. There's a simple, legitimate difference of opinion, with good faith on all sides. (There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Dead Malls, but no Wikipedia:WikiProject Malls that I can find.) Anyway, just be nice and it'll all work out. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Re: Lost episodes

I agree with what our mediation accomplished and the guidelines we produced; however, I don't recall making any naming guidelines for the episode articles, and it is at this point where I think editors, and I, disagree with your stance. What I think- having (Lost) at the end of each episode article does not make it any easier for the reader. And since we've agreed and worked together in the past, I definitely want to hear what you have to say too. -- Wikipedical 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I mean, I don't really think my viewpoint has changed concerning the necessity of disambiguation, but since I'm not really keeping up with the naming conventions discussions that much, wanna fill me in on what's being debated? Thanks. -- Wikipedical 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is reasonable and I agree with that. If the whole Wikipedia says episode summaries should be 1000 words, our 500 word compromise from the mediation is useless. We should be able to defend the work that we have done. However, what we are discussing involves guidelines not covered by or relevant to our mediation. I mean, you are the one that wants to disambiguate all articles, and I assume you would want that as a standard with all episode articles. Maybe not. Anyway, this is something one Wikiproject should not be able to do, and I agree with these other points raised on the issue. The guidelines set by our mediation were made through a formal process on Wikipedia and should definitely be maintained by the Lost Wikiproject. However, as part of the consensus that thinks naming disambiguation is unnecessary, I do not think members of our Wikiproject should be individually able to set such other guidelines for Lost articles or for all of Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

(comment sent to Wknight94 (talk · contribs)) At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), we are attempting to have a polite discussion about the wording of a poll -- a poll which multiple editors have requested be re-run, since the original version was very tangled.[11] I understand that you do not agree that the poll should be re-run. However, this does not give you the right to accuse me (again) of disruption, nor to accuse me of violating WP:POINT.[12][13]. Can you please explain just exactly which clause of WP:POINT you believe is being violated? Just to be clear, it is my opinion that your repeated statements against me are falling into the realm of a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Elonka 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything against you at all. I said starting this poll would be a disruption - asking zillions of people to look at a poll question which has already been addressed by dozens of people. You need to read both WP:POINT and WP:NPA. Your accusing me of a personal attack when nothing was directed at you personally is itself a personal attack.
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

Elonka, would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Should I answer here or on my talk page? Dgray xplane 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Sure, I would love to help, just provide me with the link. WikieZach| talk 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A summary would be nice. WikieZach| talk 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


In 26 hours

In 36 hours I will send a long message to the Meccom about arbcom procedure on this dispute as related to others. WikieZach| talk 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention dispute

Dear lord, after reading your comments and checking it out, there are MANY problems. Please sumbit a formal request with the Medcabal, and I will be able to focus the stuff there. I am also willing to take this to Arbcom if needed (hopefully it won't be). And also tell them where to find me, as I will not be able to directly mediate that page for a few days; so just tell them to direct ALL problems at me. Thanks, hope I can help! WikieZach| talk 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline being developed for malls

You have created or commented on AfDs forShopping Malls regarding criteria for having an article. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 06:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


discussing the framing issues for the mediation

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (the talk page for mediation stuff) there is a discussion started focused specifically on resolving the naming issues, fyi. Riverbend 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

TV naming update

Hi, Elonka. I'm afraid that the attempt to get moderation for the TV dispute seems to have gone off the rails. You will be interested in this post by Thatcher131, the moderator of the previous Lost dispute. I think that the next step is up to you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Re: LOST episode article titles

Hi Elonka, Sure, I'll participate in the discussions! I have a few thoughts that I'm sure will swing in favour of having episode pages include "episode" in the parentheses. --SilvaStorm

Alright, I'll get on to it ASAP. :) --SilvaStorm