User talk:Mackan/Archive Mar 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome, Mackan/Archive Mar 2007, to Wikipedia!

Enjoy editing here on Wikipedia and I hope you will stay! Be sure to post your name on the Wikipedia new user log. Below are some useful tutorials and places of interest:

You can sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~; this adds your name and current time to your comments. If you need any more help, come to Bootcamp, add {{helpme}} to your talk page, or contact me on my talk page. Have fun!

--TBC??? ??? ??? 03:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Blanchette AfD nomination

I've changed my vote. Fagstein 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Lists of flash cartoon episodes

Why did you orphan this category?

Is this novasource again? It didn't contain anything but two entries so I thought I might as well delete it. Since you've added a bunch of episodes guides now, maybe you could just add it back instead of asking me a question you probably knew the answer to beforehand.Mackan 04:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to sign it, but no, this isn't novasource. --JeffW 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your deletion of the categories. If you wish to delete a category the proper method is to go through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion --JeffW 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inu

inu is common so that I, a non-Kansai Japanese, know it. In TVs and films set on Kansai area, the word is used without annotation expecting that a typical audience know the meaning. Though there is no need to add it to the list since a long list is not necessary. Mononohazumi 00:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a Japanese native speaker helping with the Japanese language articles, and hope you will continue to contribute! Much needs to be done, not only quantity but also the accuracy of the articles are often quite questionable. I will however once again state that I don't think "去ぬ" is a very common word in everyday Kansai-ben, which is not the same as saying it is not understood by Japanese people outside Kansai. Mackan 12:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
(I went ahead and double-checked it with a Takatsukishi (Osaka) native and she said いぬはきいたことない)
I am happy too. In Google search results [1] [2] there are many inu's, though I do not insist that inu is common when a native Kansai-ben speaker says きいたことない。Mononohazumi 12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meher Baba

I went ahead and removed that section of the Meher Baba article you mentioned. I agree it sounded a bit odd. I hope no one's feelings are hurt. Chris 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

As long as there's two, then it should be added. How great you think he is is not relevant in the least. Skinnyweed 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha?
If you look at the disambiguation page, you'll see that there are two footballers named Zidane (Zinedine & Djamel), one fictional character named Zidane (Tribal), and one other footballer with a similar name (Zidan). That seems like enough to warrant inclusion of the disambiguation message. "Zidane" itself goes to Zinedine so it's fair to add a disambiguation page to that article. I know that having that redirect message is never nice but you have to keep control of your own personal emotions and maintain a neutral point of view. Skinnyweed 13:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woah, chill out a little

This comment is just a tad over the top. Mind CIVIL, NPA, and such. Kotepho 13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the only part that's over the top is when I say "fucking", but I think I made it clear WHY it's hard not to be hot-headed. And honestly, I don't care too much if the pedophiles/whatever dislike the comments I make. I didn't contribute to that article to make pedophiles feel good about themselves but to improve the page. Mackan 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Between your and my thinking is different

私とあなたは考え方が違うと言わざるを得ません。英語版のRPGツクールの記事でも大幅な削除を行ってrevertされてるみたいですが、勝手に削除していいのだろうか？価値のないものだと思って削除したかどうか分かりませんが、私にはさっぱり理解出来ません。別に私は書いてもいいものだと思って書いてるだけであり、あなたはそれをダメなものだと思ってるんですよね？ちょっとでも取るに足らないことが書いていればそれだけですぐに削除しなきゃいけないのですか？重要なこと以外は書く必要なんてないと思っているんですか？私はそうは思いません。表現や言論の自由（モラルに欠いてたり、悪戯的な書き込みではない）というものは常に保障されるべきだし、あなたはそれを削除することによって奪っているのです。勝手な判断であなたは消しているんです。Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRに私の名前を書かれる筋合いなんてありません。Administratorと書かれていますが、あなたはウィキペディアでそんなに偉い存在なんですか？今すぐにAdministrators' noticeboardから私の名前を消して頂きたい。--Hatto 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hatto, the difference between your writing and my deleting is that you are writing what you think is good regardless of the Wikipedia Guidelines, and I'm deleting things that don't belong in an encyclopedic article, for most of the time based on the Wikipedia Guidelines. How many times do people have to tell you that Wikipedia is not for people wanting "freedom of expression"? You say "表現や言論の自由（モラルに欠いてたり、悪戯的な書き込みではない）というものは常に保障されるべきだ" ("Freedom of expression (as long as it isn't immoral or libelous) should always be protected"), NO! That's not in the guidelines or anywhere else, that's your opinion and it doesn't belong here. I'm not making 勝手な判断 ("selfish judgements") when I'm deleting or editing, I'm judging what's suitable to an encyclopedia, and I repeat myself, the GUIDELINES! About the 3RR, it's not about how "erai" ("great") I am, it's about the fact that you broke a rule, and the administrator's noticeboard is where such are reported, by normal users. Further on, if you can't even argue for your sake in English, I don't think you have anything to do on the English Wikipedia. You shouldn't expect everybody to understand Japanese. For the twenty-eleventh time, familiarize yourself with the guidelines. Mackan 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not verified?

Hello Mackan,

Can you please quote or indicate which parts of this article is not verified? By the way, the "advert" tag already exists in two sections already.

Regards --Phillip J 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean the "advert" tag exists in two sections already? I can't see any, and I'd like to put it back at the top. I think 90% of the article is still unsourced, i.e. unverified. Other parts need serious re-writes (like this part: "The True Jesus Church is considered having a well structured and organised system. (Note: Taiwanese Presbyterian church point of view only)"), for example. Mackan 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I was meant to say that the "cleanup" existed in two sections already. The reason why many passages were "unverified" was due to the fact that they were translated from Chinese wikipedia.
Do you really think that a Christian denomination would "make-up" or invent its own information? --Phillip J 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if I think it's made up or not, but Wikipedia isn't about presenting yourself to others, everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable and not put in there because the church thinks that way about his self (see the guideline on "No own research").Mackan 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese name

Please check the talkpage for PlayStation 3. I will be re-adding it, but want your input and have a discussion about it with the other editors aswell befor doing so. If consensus lands on keeping it out, it will be keept out. Havok (T/C/c) 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked an admin to look at it. As for straw polls, it's a guideline not a policy so although it is a general acceptance between editors, it is not a policy which must be followed by any editor. As for my "opinion" on the name, I have stated why it should stay, and it seems most agree with me. I have no intention of arguing with you, I simply see no reason to remove the japanese name. And there is nothing in official policy about it's inclusion or not in anyway, shape or form on Wikipedia. So removing it is just as trivial as keeping it. Feel free to discuss further on the talk page. Havok (T/C/c) 12:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playstation article

Yes, it has been discussed before on the PS3 page and unlike what you said at that discussion page, the consensus was to remove the Japanese...Mackan 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The first vote ended 4-3, one vote higher doesn't qualify as concensus, and the Japanese secondary name was never removed. And it looks like this time the vote is 5-2 in favor of keeping it. The Playstation 2 article has had the Japanese secondary name since January of 2004,[3] and no one has ever been bothered by it. All of a sudden you are all up in arms about it for the Playstation 3 article. I have no idea why you're so up in arms about such a trivial matter, nevertheless I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes. Dionyseus 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This vote doesn't count as proper procedure wasn't followed (which is the reason I haven't cast my vote). See Wikipedia:Straw polls. No, I shouldn't have used the word consensus, that was mistaken (but you shouldn't have said there was "overwhelming support for the Japanese name"). I think your comment "I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes" shows of a lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia principles. You seem to have made up your mind without listening to my arguments, and unwilling to listen to any further argumentation. Yes, it is a rather trivial matter and I didn't intend to start an argument about it, that's why I at first just removed the katakana. But if it's gonna be an argument it should be a fair one and I'm clearly stating why the katakana doesn't belong in the article. Mackan 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your behavior is starting to come off as infecting when you revert my changes to PS2 and Gamecube and especially when you say "The concensus is 5-2 in favor of keeping the secondary Japanese name in the Playstation 3 article. Do not delete the name until a decision is made)". First of all, as I've already told you and stated more than once on the PS3 talk page, the straw poll is not valid (and even if had been a valid straw poll, polls are never binding, see Wikipedia: Straw polls). Secondly, if you are unbiased why would you then not complain about user:Havok reverting the PS3 page after stating he wouldn't revert it but argue about it. Mackan 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read your arguments and I believe they are incorrect. Both votes have shown that your argument has no concensus. The Playstation 2 article has had the katakana name since January 2004. [4]I think your removal of the katakana from the Playstation article, [5] and your removal of the katakana from the Nintendo Gamecube article, [6] were erroneous because you claim to have reached concensus when in fact it did not. If you refuse to abide by the concensus then we clearly should request a mediation case. Dionyseus 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC
I'm protecting those pages from blanking of the Japanese secondary name. As for Havok, take a look at your user page, he gave a perfectly valid reason for placing the Japanese secondary name back into the article. Dionyseus 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said in my reverts we had reached consensus, I merely meant that my reasons for removing the name could be found in more detail at the PS3 talk page. You believe my arguments are incorrect but you won't specify why! I think you are wasting people's time if you can't even argue about a simple thing like if the katakana should be included or not without requesting meditation. Please address my arguments at the PS3 talk page. Also there is no consensus reached right now so how could I refuse it? Especially when I haven't touched the article in question since Havok took it up on the talk page.Mackan 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've already given many reasons why the katakana name should not be removed. For example, one of your arguments is that the katakana name takes up too much space. That's clearly false and no one has ever complained about it in the Playstation 2 article and that name has been there since January 2004. [7] The only person who has complained about it taking up too much space is you for the Playstation 3 article. Dionyseus 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your 2 arguments are "It's a Japanese console" without any further reasoning and the 2nd one "it's short" (just as frank). You seem to have little knowledge of the Japanese language, not a crime in itself but you won't listen to somebody who obviously posseses more knowledge on the subject than you. Yes, it's a Japanese product but romaji, roman letters such as used in the name "PLAYSTATION 3" are also a part of the Japanese language. You seem to have a misguided conception that only katakana, hiragana and kanji should be regarded as Japanese, when in fact, the official name in Japan as well as elsewhere is the latin lettering "PLAYSTATION 3". Also, I'm not the only one who has addressed the fact that it's taking up space, see the old vote where one user referred to it as "verbal pollution".Mackan 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well first you claimed that I never gave any reason to support the inclusion of the name, and now you admit that I give two reasons. Well now you can add another reason, Sony of Japan sometimes uses the katanaka to refer to the Playstation 3. [8] Dionyseus 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kyoto: Transportation

Dear Mackan,

I believe you have removed a brief comment I added to the transportation section of the article on Kyoto on the importance of the bicycle as a means of tranport in the city. You "question the validity" and state that this is "unsupported". Your doubt surprises me. Nearly every where you go in the city you will see a tremendous number of people relying on bicycles as their primary form of transportation. Everyone I know in Kyoto has a bicycle and uses it daily, or several times a week. You can see mothers with two or three children heading for the grocery shop on a bike. Young men and women heading for the center on a Friday night. Priests, salarimen, women in kimono. Bicycles are one of the most visible forms of human physical activity in the city. While this has not be extensively documented, it is a hard to deny fact of life in Kyoto. A note in the Wikipedia article seems like a good place to start, wouldn't you agree? p.s. if you live in Kyoto, do you cycle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 133.186.47.9 (talk • contribs) .

See the talk page for Kyoto for an answer. Mackan 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schadenfreude

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you.

Davidkevin 06:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I said "major purge" which means making something pure or clean by getting rid of bad things. I could also have said stuff like "listcruft" and quoted "What wikipedia is not" ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"). The fact that the word "Schadenfreude" once was uttered on a TV show does not mean it should be mentioned in the article for that word. Mackan 12:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
Davidkevin 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I must say I'm flabbergasted. I find it hard to believe you are actually being that stupid, which makes me lose my "good faith" in you. Please actually read the policy page on Vandalism and don't throw that accusation around whenever you see it fit, I'd say it's rather rude. Like I stated, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and an enormous list of TV episodes where the word was uttered doesn't belong in a encyclopedia. Mackan 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Davidkevin 06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Davidkevin 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Mackan, other people have been working to compile examples of the use of schadenfreude in popular culture for 3-1/2 years, and it is extremely arrogant-appearing on your part to come in out of nowhere and wholesale-delete material because you think it's "listcruft".

I will agree with you on examples in which the word is merely mentioned without context, but in examples where the meaning of the word is made clearer through the example, it is inappropriate that you continue these deletions with the appearence of "just because you wanna".

Schadenfreude is an uncommon word which has become increasingly media-common in a relatively short time. Several examples of Uses In Context are necessarily in order to make it clear where and where it is not appropriate to use the word -- otherwise, we will be left with the semantic confusion such as exists between "disinterested" and "uninterested".

Davidkevin 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Davidkevin, you are taking this article way too personally, it's not about who wrote what or how long it took them, if doesn't belong in an encyclopedia it doesn't belong, and that's the bottom line. I have no vested interest in this one particular article but to make it better. I'd recommend you to read up on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. Also, this discussion belongs at the talk page of Schadenfreude and not on my talkpage, please continue this discussion there where more people interested in the article will have a chance to participate. Mackan 07:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Already posted there.
It isn't a matter of personality, it's a matter of you removing appropriate material. I have no problem with good edits, I just don't see what you're doing as such. I submit that you are making the article worse, not better, less encyclopedic, not smoother.
Davidkevin 07:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Less encyclopedic", to somebody making that statement, I feel forced to ask if you've ever read a paper encyclopedia even once? Your view of a "good edit" seems to be quite out of line with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please, as I've recommended before, read up on them. Mackan 07:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Kid, I'm fifty and read my first encyclopedia 46 years ago. So, yeah, you can stop the WP:CIV uncivil remarks designed to denigrate me rather than dealing with the issue at hand.
Davidkevin 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So you don't think calling me "kid" is an uncivil remark? If having a list of every single TV episode where the word ever appeared is encyclopedic, could you please give me a list of encyclopedias which follow this peculiar practice. Mackan 07:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: "I will agree with you on examples in which the word is merely mentioned without context, but in examples where the meaning of the word is made clearer through the example, it is inappropriate that you continue these deletions...."
Davidkevin 08:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree completely with Mackan. David, Mackan is referring to Wikipedia style and policy; you seem to have a mere emotional connection to the "3.5 years" worth of filling up the page with example after example. And threatening to have him blocked because of what you mistakenly characterize as "vandalism" seems purposely belligerent. Ztrawhcs 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"3.5 years" is a statement of fact, as anybody who looks at the edit record can determine. Ad hominem psychoanalysis violates WP:CIV. See comments above with regard to non-existent "emotional connection".
Davidkevin 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, I took the mediation case requested by Davidkevin. If you would like to participate, I have started the discussion on the talk page of the article. LawrenceTrevallion 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of romaji

Please read my statement again. I did not "write dead sure comments". I specifically cited the EDICT dictionary definition, mentioned that it was my understanding as well, and even added a disclaimer — I study using kana, hence I do not actually use romaji much. What part of this constitutes a "dead sure" comment?

As for having "little to no knowledge": I would not have even mentioned my own understanding of the issue if I did not have a few years of classes in the language. I would by no means consider myself an expert, but I'm a little different than, say, one of those fanboys who believe they can "learn" Japanese by watching tons of anime. — Wisq (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, saying "dead sure" was maybe an overreaction, but if you had read the entire discussion I feel you would have no need to question the definition. Mackan 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yakiniku

Sorry to forget to answer your inquiry on the yakiniku article. I'd call it coincidence. I occasionally check article under Category:Japan and its subcategories and thier "related changes" to see if I can help improving them. I just happened to see your change and checked the article and its history. As Gegesongs's theory and the original thory lacked citation, I have added a {{fact}} tag. I have recently moved and edited takoyaki pan "all of a sudden" ;) as well. I hope this answered your concern about my edit. --Kusunose 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you say it is a coincidence I'll believe you. I was just worried the first user "called all his friends" and told them to change the article. Mackan 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subst'ing

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Paul Cyr 17:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, had no idea. Thanks for letting me know. Mackan 17:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New vote over Sea of Japan edit

Hi, I've started a new vote with the proposal I outlined beforehand. I would appreciate it if you could head on over to the talk page and vote. Thanks, John Smith's 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Newgrounds BBS deletion

You know what, I'm going to revert every single change you make to the Newgrounds article. You're not a dictator, there are many people that are entirely supportive of mentioning the BBS, and especially some of the recent controversies that have taken place. Quit being a tyrant. But I can play this game if you want, myself, and other users are going to revert every single destructive revision you ever make to the Newgrounds article. - Metapotent

Hello Mackan I do not want to start a fight or start off on wrong foot as we say in America. I only want you to hear me out.

Now first off I did not blindley make a new article becuase I really wanted to and hoped not to get in trouble or get banned. I noticed that the BBS section on newgrounds had gotten removed, and felt Obliged to make an article.

Secondley the article wasn't removed becuase it wasn't noteworthy it was removed because it was poorley written and already had a section on it. The section on it is gone I feel it was written fairley well. I mean honostley if something awful had it's own little section would there still be an article?Here

Well in the end is there anything I can do about it? Probably not. I just want you to know the article's cirumstance and if in any possible way at all if there is a way to bring it back could you inform me. I come from the BBS and among those users it's extremely important to those thousands of users. Of that importence I beleve it's note worthy. CartoonDiablo 14:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)cartoondiablo

Vote on it here [9]

[edit] Newgrounds

I've been monitering Newgrounds for some time, and there seems to be some controversy regarding the inclusion of the BBS in the article. Now I know that you personally don't think the any information in the BBS belongs in the article and that many editors agree with you, I also know though that many editors believe that there should be at least a small mention of the BBS as is evident by their requests to merge information in the AFD for the article on the Newgrounds BBS.

Now I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong, but I feel the back and forth editing on the article needs to come to an end. I'd wonder if you and some of the editors who want it included in the article would be willing to discuss a solution that at least gives everyone a little bit of what they want. I've left a similar message on the talk page of one of them and would appreciate if we could all sort this out before it possibly gets edit-warry. Cheers Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not interested. Wikipedia is not about giving "everyone a little bit of what they want". The people who want to include the BBS are obviously BBS regulars and have no support in Wikipedia guidelines for its inclusion. Mackan 09:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you feel that way, I sincerely hope that the dispute wears itself out instead of escalating. If at any point you feel that someone is needed for to help resolve things feel free to contact me. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 17:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This is very late, but having just noticed this, I'd just like to say that I am not a BBS regular in any way, and I would have supported some information about the BBS being in the article. The Newgrounds BBS is one of the larger forums on the internet and also plays a large role in shaping the community, the size and significance of which in turn is part of the foundation for Newgrounds' notability in the first place.
Furthermore, I'm really disheartened that any Wikipedian would so bluntly turn down a polite offer of mediation. Wikipedia may not be about giving "everyone a little bit of what they want," but it IS largely about consensus, and compromise IS most often the easiest, most productive, and least aggravating way of bringing that about. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Corean2006

Incorrect:日本語が母語としてる人はああいうブログ書くんか？絶対にうそやろ。 Correct  :日本語を母語としてる人がああいうブログ書くんか？絶対にうそやろ。 I'm NOT a Japanese but grew up in Japan. I'm a native Japanese speaker. I feel shame at speaking Japanese language. I want you know that our ancestor were carted off to Japan by Japanese military.

I want to make a countercharge cruel Japanese. Don't prevent me. Do you, by any chance, have discrimination against Korea? Corean2006 10:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Mackan, all evidence suggests this user is a rather childish Japanese bigot. His deliberately absurd comments and edits are a perfect parody of the Japanese stereotype of the "whinging Korean" , even down to the username. Some people simply have too much time on their hands. Phonemonkey 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement vs. credit

Regarding your recent changes to Furry fandom and Yiff, I concur that Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising. However, if works of art are used in an article I do believe it is appropriate to give proper credit to an artist whose work is used in an article, and questionable not to. Thus I believe that the names of the artists should be restored to at least these two articles, and any others where you may have made similar edits. --Mwalimu59 22:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not about personal opinions, check out the Wikipedia guidelines. If the copyright tag doesn't specify that the author has to be credited on the page, they shouldn't be. Mackan 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Crazy Monkey Games

An editor has nominated the article Crazy Monkey Games for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Monkey Games. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Crazy Monkey Games during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. I personally agree the article should be kept, but I felt compelled to nominate it because it was a contested prod. You may also want to check out WP:WEB to help bolster your argument for inclusion. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newgrounds Article

I restored some information on the Newgrounds article and commented on the talk page about the Review section that you removed. I figured you would probably be interested in knowing. You can see my comment on the talk page here. Cheers. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re X-Ray Specs

Well, you're right, I want to keep the image partly because it amuses me. But (1) this is an article where you almost have to have an image of the item discussed, or else the article is pretty lame and (2) c'mon, it's not that bad, sheesh; it may not be pretty but at least you can see what the article is talking about. On the other hand, I guess it would be OK (but not as good) just to have a link to a page that shows the specs, or maybe a non-free-use image just taken from a web site and used under fair use, although to replace what may be a free use image (because it contains original creative work) with a non-free image is pretty much a no-no I guess, regardless of the respective artistic merits.

Here's what I'm going to suggest. In the dispute resolution process, there is a a tiny first step called Wikipedia:Third opinion where you just ask a random uninvolved third party to weigh in; it's no big deal. I'll list in there, and whatever he says is OK with me if its OK with you, deal? (Also, I'll put in an image requests for someone to provide an actual photo, which would solve the problem, but who knows when if an if that'll happen.) Herostratus 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, there you go, it's done - the 3rd person agreed with you, and the image is gone. Now that's quick dispute resolution! Herostratus 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flowers For Algernon

Hack: "to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes". To me, this is what your edit appeared to be. You cut most of the entries, leaving a few apparently at random, and without explanation. Whether it was "honest" or not, your edit appeared crude and without justification. Sincerely, -- Doctormatt 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that the "hack" in "overly zealous references hack" is a noun, with carries meanings different from the verb, but whatever, apology accepted.
Haha, I'm just kidding, I realise that was not an apology.Mackan 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Good one. Cheers, Doctormatt 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senkaku Islands the related islands

Hi Mackan, would you give us your comment on Talk:Senkaku_Islands#Articles_of_infdividual_islands_and_rocks? My opinion is to redirect all the related pages to the Senkaku Islands and then lock them until we reach to some agreement about their naming. Currently, both sides are not interested in talking each other anymore and just endlessly reverting. Thank you. Jjok 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryūkyū notes

Hello. I noticed that you just moved Ryukyu Islands to Ryūkyū Islands. I need to warn you: that very topic has been and continues to be an extremely hotly debated topic. See Talk:Ryūkyū Islands and Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū for full details. You are being bold and that is a good thing. However, do not be surprised if you get a few angry comments. No need to revert it, however I suggest leaving it alone for now until there is some consensus. If you agree (or even diagree) about the macronization of Ryūkyū, I suggest that you make some comments on the Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū page. Unfortuately the poll there just ended yesterday. However, there is debate over the results and how to proceed. If you are interested in the topic, feel free to join the debate. Bendono 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, missed that debate entirely. Can't see why Ryūkyū would be any different from for example Hokkaidō though...Mackan 11:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand how you feel. If you feel strongly about the issue, then I do encourage you to join the debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). That is the primary place where these issues are decided. It is never too late for rational discussion. Bendono 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryukyu Islands

Hi. I noticed you moved Ryukyu Islands to Ryūkyū Islands. Were you aware of the extensive discussion going on regarding that move, on the talk page and also at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu"? Was there a consensus established for that move somewhere? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I read the topic directly above. I apologize for the repetition. Please feel free to ignore me now. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There are now 24 double redirects created by that page move, creating 100s of article-space links like this: Ryukyu. I'm reluctant to fix them, because the discussion was leaning towards keeping the page at the unmacroned version, and if we move back, they'll just have to be fixed again, and I don't know if that might happen soon. Please be careful in the future when moving pages to check for and fix any double redirects that you create. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate Party

Concerning your recent changes to Pirate Party:

Very well, I'll provide references, but I believe you're being overly zealous. If you require references for every statement in every article, the encyclopedia becomes unreadable. I get the feeling you're generally trying to question the impact of the movement, rather than provide a factually correct article.

I have offered to provide references to the statements, and yet you insist the burden of proof lies on me, rather than on you who were changing the article in the first place. I don't think this is ethical.

Besides, I know about the caution required when editing articles on topics one is directly involved with, as well as the statement thatif you see something factually wrong, there's nothing preventing you from changing it. Just as you may get upset over the revert, I get upset over things that are changed to be factually wrong. For instance, the greens copied the pirate party's program point for point. I think that's pretty significant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falkvinge (talk • contribs) 09:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

You have no idea what you are talking about. Please assume good faith, there are no reasons for you not to. I have no vested interest in this article other than make sure the presentation is unbiased, the same can however not be said of you, as you obviously have personal gains to make by presenting Piratpartiet in as good light as possible.
You say you have offered to provide references, but any references needed to support statements made in the article should be presented there and not on the talk page. You did include a new source to this end, so what is the problem?
The edits you made did however further propel the POV of the article (for example suggesting that it's the opinion of IDG, when in fact, it was the opinion of one or two members of an IT panel for the magazine PC för Alla, in turn owned by IDG). Let me suggest that you voluntarily refrain from editing that article again. If you have any gripes with the article, please post on the talk page, like you did with your biography. If not, I will consider reporting you to an administrator. Mackan 12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you should report me to an admin if you feel that it is appropriate to do so, just like I might if I feel so. While it is true that I feel strongly about the subject, I also feel strongly that the article should reflect nothing but the truth, and I believe that you deliberately made untrue statements, out of a motivation I do not know. Your latest watering-down is one example of this; while the discussion was presented by the magazine you say, the panel consisted of people from two different magazines (none of which was PC För Alla) plus the chief editor of IDG in Sweden. It was also presented on IDG's front page, so there is nothing inappropriate about claiming it comes from IDG.
The problem I had was mainly your removing statements you believed to be untrue (such as the influence) rather than asking for sources. Not only did you remove the reference to influence, you stated flat out that nobody claimed such an influence existed, which is just plain wrong - and a strong POV, as well as unreferenced.
Again, your latest edit "these specific people claim" to yours "some claim" is not NPOV. Being very specific is not POV, it is merely fact.
You suggest I do not edit the article again. Well, rest assured I will if there is something in it that I feel is inaccurate or untrue. In this aspect, that article is no different to me than any other article on Wikipedia.
In order to avoid edit wars, let's try resolve disputes directly between us instead, ok? So my first thing to ask of you would be to reinstate the IDG reference.
Re. good faith, it's hard for me to assume anything when you remove verifiable facts (such as the green party's program being a point-for-point copy of the pirate party's on copyright). Falkvinge 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"the green party's program being a point-for-point copy of the pirate party's on copyright". Even if that were true (I honestly have no idea), you need a source explicitly stating they copied Piratpartiet. Just posting links to the party's respective programmes doesn't prove anything. Suggesting it does falls under Wikipedia:Original Research. If they really did copy it though, I don't think it would take you more than 5 minutes of googling to find a reliable source stating so, so instead of constantly bickering, why don't you try and find a reliable source? Now I know you probably have more insight than most in Piratpartiet, but Wikipedia relies on verifiable second hand information, and if you want to implement what you know first hand, you'd better find sources supporting your statements. Please realise that I have no hidden agenda and that I'm merely trying to implement Wikipedia guidelines. I would recommend you to familiarize yourself through WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. I'll get back to you on the "IDG" video later. Mackan 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your last edit, because blogs are not considered reliable resources (once again, see WP:RS. I understand if you might feel frustrated by my constant reverting, but I can only ask you to keep on assuming good faith, as I am only following guidelines. My only interest is the quality of the article. Mackan 19:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, now I feel we are getting constructive. Falkvinge 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

One week later: First of all, I want to thank you for challening the article as and when you did. I feel that it's become much better, encyclopaedic, and properly sourced as a result. I should have learned this from basic leadership - if you have one person in a group who constantly challenges decisions, the group will be pissed off, but the group's output will be consistently better than comparable output from groups without such a challenger. In the process, I learned to assume good faith, and I thank you for that too.
Second, as you have not edited the IDG reference yet and Dagens Nyheter posted a big splash today, I took the liberty of changing the references, both sourcing IDG and the new Dagens Nyheter article. As usual, I tried to be as factual and objectively sourced as possible. If it can be construed as POV, I will try to learn to do even better.
Again, thanks. Falkvinge 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropophobia

You already have a full year of wikipedia experience, colleague. Please don't create article which are mere dictionary definitions and without providing reliable sources. Please also read the -phob- article about dubious phobia lists and sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropophobia . `'mikka 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the wiktionary article on the subject, there was one of those "this article exists in Wikipedia"-links, but when I clicked on it there was nothing there. I figured a phobia should have an article, even if it's a stubby one. Also, I couldn't quite see why a definition of a phobia would be just be a "dicdef", while another short stub could just as well be "A is a B" or something similar, without being a difdec. I suppose I should have looked for sources more reliable than wiktionary though. Mackan 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Tropophobia is fear of movement" is a dicdef because it defines a word. "Tropophobia is a disease blabla..." is a statement beyond word description: it is a description of something from real life. And as such, as you correctly mentioned, it requires reliable sources whether this disease is real, i.e., whenther someone actually suffered from it and it was notable enough to be recorded and reported. You can invent a disease for every word from greek and latin and english dictionary and beyond. Like, mikkaphobia and mackanphobia are quite valid but hardly encyclopedic diseases, although I have a plenty of evidence that the first one is very real :-) `'mikka 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primogeniture

I was not objecting to your substantive point, but to the form in which it was expressed. A demand that someone "prove a negative" is widely regarded as an improperly high (though not necessarily impossible) standard of proof in logic. Since many negatives simply are not susceptible of proof even when universally acknowledged to be true (e.g. "No man has given natural birth to a child"), the evidence of truth in such cases will be the absence of any evidence, aka the "null set" ("the set of all men known to have given natural birth to a child". Or, relevantly, "the set of all thrones known to have descended by female primogeniture"). Normally, the burden of disproof falls upon the challenger to a negative statement: a single counter-example refutes a negative assertion. I objected in principle to what I deemed a reversal of the usual rule of logic. Upon reflection, however, I concede the point, since it is legitimate on Wiki to request that an allegation have a verifiable source -- even if the claim made by that source cannot reasonably be proven. I'll agree to modify the statement to something like, "No crown is known to have descended by female primogeniture" (subject to fact-checking the line of succession to the throne of the Rain Queen which, it just occurred to me, descends only to females through females, although I don't know if seniority of birth is applicable). My error, my apology. Lethiere 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece Navy tag

I am unclear about your specific purpose in tagging the Navy/Marine Corps section of Navy (One Piece) as "Original Research" / "Unverified Claims". If you mean to suggest that the references for that section should be cited, then by all means, I will do so. The difficulty in pinning it down as "original research" is that the section itself is more an explanation of what should be more-or-less self-evident to fans with a certain amount of knowledge about the series and the Japanese language. Though it does not phrase things ideally, the main intent of the section is to demonstrate the specificity of the word Kaigun using evidence from the series and the language itself, and show specifically how the term "Marine" as the author uses it has been misapprehended by English-speaking fans. If you have any specific issues with the text as it currently reads, please make note of it on the article's talk page.

Thank you. --Julian Grybowski 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read through the definition of WP:OR I would be surprised if you would not agree that that specific section is very much Original Research. For example, if you don't have a reliable source stating that "many English-speaking fans of the series call the Navy the "Marines" instead" that section should definately not be included. And by reliable source, I mean a reliable source as per WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Mackan 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)