User talk:Yukichigai/Archive 1

Hello, Yukichigai, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 18:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on the mediation page. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 00:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt I edited an old version, and looking at the edit history, there seems to be some additions done to the article that I have not done, or at least that is how I am reading it. All I did was add a link :-\

- Cheech151337 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the version immediately before your edit. You'll see what I mean. -- Y|yukichigai 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep reporting stuff on my IP, I haven't made any edits in months.

- 66.66.190.55 aka Cheech151337

I haven't reported anything on your IP in a while that I'm aware of. Hell, I haven't reported a user for vandalism in at least a month. -- Y|yukichigai 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I knew it would redirect somewhere, I just didn't think it would be valid. Bastique▼^parler _voir 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing that redirect was an example of being bold. Not every editorial decision on Wikipedia must be trudged through a formal mediation. In this case, I ran accross a redirect that in most cases leads people to the wrong article (check out [1]), checked out Talk:Tribes series, and found that this redirect was changed on a whim to the Tribes game earlier. Now the article on the Tribes series of video games is still accessible and linked to from tribe (disambiguation), however the tribes redirect should link to the main tribe article on social groups, as there is a very clear hierarchy of importance between the subjects at tribe (disambiguation).

I am going to revert the tribe redirect again and I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on your reasoning for changing it back. Thanks for your time ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Whereas most articles that link to Tribes when referring to the games should instead link to Tribes series, the majority of links that merely use the plural of the word "tribe" are actually proper links. (As an aside, the best way to link to the plural form of a term is to add, for instance, [[tribe]]s, which allows the MediaWiki software to move the "s" within the main link - sadly most editors are not aware of this.) Your suggestion to track usage is creative, but I am not sure that a redirect or disambig talk page will garner much attention and soliciting opinions on the disambig/redirect page itself goes against Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Unfortunately there is no easy way to track the search box usage in Wikipedia, but if Google or dictionaries are of any indication, most references to "tribes" do indeed refer to the classification of social groups. To help people searching for the Tribes series of videogames the disambiguation notice at tribe could be modified, saving users that extra click to the disambig page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Deus Ex mods. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, now I have to remind you of WP:AGF for calling me a sockpuppet of AMIB. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You meet numerous critera for being a sock puppet, not the least of which is your familiarity with the topic at hand despite never having participated in the process, as well as your suspect use of the nickname "AMIB". At the very least you have been recruited at the behest of AMIB, itself highly frowned upon. -- Y|yukichigai 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, AMIB asked me to look into the edits. I can see that he merged the mods article into the normal article, and I reverted based on that. You and he have been edit-warring over this and I have reported you to WP:AN3. I suggest that you revert yourself, and then civilized discussion can be had between yourself and AMIB. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the talk page. A similar suggestion was made by another user and was being observed, the only difference being that the article was being preserved until a consensus was reached as per WP:BOLD. Discussions were occuring, albeit not that productive. You had to stir the shit, so to speak. -- Y|yukichigai 02:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do hope you reported yourself for a 3RR violation, as your revert was made way beyond the third revert. -- Y|yukichigai 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted once. If you feel it necessary, list AMIB at the 3RR noticeboard, but this will get you nowhere. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser? Are you joking? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Deus Ex mods, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Timeline of heavy metal music. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Imoeng 02:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The above warning is incredibly confusing, (since neither myself nor the editor who "cited" me have ever edited the article in question) and should be preserved for the sake of hilarity. -- Y|yukichigai 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, sorry I also do not think I reverted that page, must be the VP software. I will get back to you ASAP. Sorry again for bothering you. Cheers -- Imoeng 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarified, it is a bug in the software. Please see WP:VP2 for information. Again, sorry. Cheers -- Imoeng 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of what you have written is exactly what I, and probably a lot of others have been thinking lately. I really think you should bring this issue up with some of the higher-ups in Wikipedia. There were a couple things in what you wrote that perhaps could be improved, however. Firstly, is perhaps the tone to a certain extent. Though I know this is just your personal thoughts at this point, a slightly more formal tone at some parts might be helpful.

Also, it may be just the way it is written, but the "Drastic Rewriting of an Article with No Related Experience" section seems to kind of contradict itself in regard to whether an editor having no experience with a subject is good or not. That part may need to be clarified a bit.

The "Strength in Numbers" section also might not be the best presented, as it seems you are actually encouraging an edit war as a last result with a petulant editor. I must say I'm pretty sure you're not going to get much support for that position. Though it is good that you brought up the getting a third editor to revert again angle which I think has been too often abused of late.

You also might want to consider adding something about excessive merging of articles as well, as I think the drive for this has been increasingly exaggerated lately.

That's just my two cents. Overall, there are some very good points in there, and I really think some of them should be brought up on a larger scale within Wikipedia. Especially given the recent actions of certain personages. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some of it wasn't quite as clear as I wanted it to come out. The "Drastic Rewrite" section in particular was one of those sections where I could grasp the concept but just couldn't put it into the right words. Of course, keep in mind that I wrote most of this as a kind of "stream of consciousness" thing, while I was at work no less. Seriously.

As for "Strength in Numbers", you're right. The way it reads it seems to come off like I'm encouraging an edit war, which was not what I was going for at all. The points I'm trying to make there are 1) If you think you've got some Content Nazism coming down the pipe you should try to keep some "backup" on hand in case you need it, should an edit war unfortunately occur, and 2) if the opposing editor knows you're not the only one who is willing to "defend the article" (or some more diplomatic way of saying it) then they are much less likely to engage in an edit war, seeing as it will be completely pointless. This fosters discussion. Hooray for diplomacy!

The merging thing has been driving me nuts too, but the problem is not really the merging itself so much as (again) the way it is being used. Mergism is a perfectly valid point of view; it's when the process of merging deletes the bulk of the article's content that it's the issue. This manner of abuse is not specific to merging, and I'm trying to find a good way to express the overall concept of this type of "editor abuse" without appearing to single out Mergism. Truthfully, "merge abuse" is just the particular brand that you and I are most familiar with.

Anyway, thanks for the input, and I'm glad you find my ramblings informative. I'll be pecking away at the topic all weekend most likely, so hopefully I'll get some of the issues sorted out. -- Y|yukichigai 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Yukichigai. I've just finished reading your "Content Nazism" article, and I find it relevant in regards to several infallible editors that I've recently come to heads with. I have two concerns regarding its style, the first being "Strength in Numbers" as per mentioned above, and the second being the title of "Content Nazism". With such a title, I do not believe the administrative team will be likely to take you seriously, or at least, consider this an unbiased perspective. You should reconsider the name of this article, perhaps "Content Control" or "Bureaucratic behaviour on Wikipedia". Other than this, I believe it to be a sound effort, good job. I've found that the closest I've come to identifying overly vigilant editors is WP:CREEP, but this is not enough in some cases. Have a good one. Gamer Junkie 08:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the "Strength in Numbers" section a little more, but I'm not sure if I got my thoughts into text properly. It's late, what can I say. I know it is at least closer to what I'm trying to say.

The article title was just the first thing that came to mind. In addition to being a title that isn't likely to be taken seriously, and a self-Godwinning title, it doesn't accurately reflect the socio-political theory I'm trying to reference. Fortunately there's this great resource for finding information on the internet called wiki... wikisomething. Perhaps you've heard of it. Anyway, a more appropriate title for the article/essay/whatever would be "Content Authoritarianism". It's a bit of a mouthful, but that is exactly what I had in mind when I was writing this. I just forgot the name, so it was Nazis to the rescue.

That came out wrong.

Anyway, I'm done for the day. Off to bed, more editing and moving of the article tomorrow. Thanks for your two cents! -- Y|yukichigai 08:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately the term "authoritarianism" is generally understood throughout the mainstream, so this title would be perfectly suitable. Gamer Junkie 09:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:MetalocalypseJean-Pierre before and after.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the discussion. Where is it? Gamer Junkie 12:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

SIGH. Arguing with AMIB is utterly pointless. You can't compromise with a man like that, he couldn't see past his rulebook if the result would cure cancer. As always, it's going to come down to his guidelines versus commonsense. The man's hellbent on destroying information that he doesn't believe is suited to Wikipedia, and the interests of others don't seem to be highly placed in his priorities. Gamer Junkie 07:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The point now is more about establishing consensus, not swaying his opinion. No matter how hard he clings to the rules he still has to abide by the consensus, and if the consensus disagrees with him.... -- Y|yukichigai 07:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's only one battle, and when it comes to Deus Ex, he's fighting the war. It would very much be in the interests of Wikipedia and its featured Deus Ex information if we could all simply come to a compromise. Gamer Junkie 22:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He actually seems to have gotten some perspective on the situation, and is being remarkably reasonable now. Hopefully this will last. -- Y|yukichigai 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Yukichigai. You're improvements are evident and the essay is very good. It's a shame this isn't a guideline, although I'm sure it would rattle more than a few admins to have such a policy approved, considering the bulk of their authority revolves around a better understanding and wielding of the Wiki rulebook. Nevertheless, perhaps if every stubborn bureaucrat roaming Wikipedia takes the time to read things like this, it might just make them realise that teamwork and compromise are the key to a successful Wiki article. Cheers. Gamer Junkie 10:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my terseness. I was just getting really annoyed with trying to keep all these one sentence page creations that have no way of ever becoming more than that under control. And dealing with 10 year-olds who don't know the basics of grammar. I think I'm more frustrated with American schools than the students themselves... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all good. There are plenty of obvious reason for PROD on the article, just want to make sure they're properly articulated for fairness and all. :P -- Y|yukichigai 12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just felt it my duty to inform you that I've taken the liberty of adding a link to your essay on my User Page in order to help convey my spiralling opinion of many of my fellow editors of late. This does not include yourself, by the way. Gamer Junkie 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know it's getting some use. Maybe it'll catch on. (we can only hope) -- Y|yukichigai 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised, on seeing your comments at AfD/Shattered Consensus, that there was at the time no such essay as WP:SARCASM. So I've tried to begin to remedy the lack. What do you think? MastCell 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an accurate summary of the point I was trying to get across. If you can keep that same tone for the rest of the stuff you add to it (if you add to it) it'll be perfect.

Yes, I realize I should have used some sarcasm in this reply, but it's too early for my brain to remember how to do that. :P -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since both simplified and traditional characters should be included, Jiang should put up his traditional characters besides my simplified characters. However, what he has done was to erase my simplified characters and replace them with his traditional characters. Isn't he also vandalizing the page? Highshines 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but both your edits and his fall into the category of failing to follow WP:NPOV more than anything else. It's not usually cited as vandalism per se, unless it is clearly done to promote a distinct POV. I don't think that applies here in either case. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for replying to my post at the WP:AFD discussion for Sexy Losers.

If you review WP:AFD, you may note the following text:

Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted"

I didn't make up this idea to disenfranchise some specific person. They happen to have voted in alignment with me. But it's a community discussion, and very new users are not members of the community for technical purposes, often. You'd run into the same issues trying to vote for ArbCom members if you'd just joined.

Thanks for your understanding :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 06:19Z

"Discounted", not "ignored". If you read the rest of the sentence it goes on to explain that users who were registered before the article was AfD'd are given more "weight" than those who registered after. If AfD worked like you suggested then Wikipedia wouldn't be a consensus community, it would be an oligarchy.

New users have just as much right to participate in AfD discussions as anybody else, because AfD is really about the quality of arguments that are raised, not the quantity. If someone using an unregistered IP posts clear and undeniable proof that an article meets WP:N (or whatever it is being AfD'd for) then we aren't going to ignore it just because they didn't go through "the process" and "pay their dues" first. That is the very definition of elitism, and it is reprehensible to suggest it be applied to an AfD. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, re: to: "Revert. The navbox link is subtle and may go unnoticed. Removing the episodes section is a hazard to navigation.". No problem, I should've known that.. Anyway, have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert has been reverted in turn. I agree with that and suggest that you review policy. "Published", "reliable" sources does not include crude fan pages. "Published" means published in print or in a regular news source. As for my other edit you reverted (without even commenting): Redundant internal links are always bad. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Redundant internal links" are only bad insofar as they disrupt the article. A time loop, as I mentioned in my edit summary, is a key plot element of the show; understanding the concept is vital to understanding the show. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw you mentioned it, whatever "wiki'd" means... however, one internal link per article is enough. Repeating it in the see also section only serves to blow up the article size. As for "1": as you didn't comment on it here, I take it you agree that the external link is not precisely encyclopedic? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After examining it, no. My initial objection was to the rationale that the image should be removed because it "wasn't published," since as far as Wikipedia is concerned being on the internet qualifies as publishing. Reliability, on the other hand, is not asserted in any way for that image.

As to the internal linking, anything which makes information more difficult to find in a Wikipedia article is bad, far worse than "redundant internal linking". If this was a minor concept that was not vital to understanding the plot it wouldn't be an issue, but the concept of a Time Loop is, as I said, vital to understanding the show. Besides, adding an additional line to the See Also section will add an extra, what, <1k to the article? The pros seem to far outweigh the cons here. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello... it's not worth arguing over, so I won't restore the edit you reverted for now. However, your assertion about language was incorrect - there is no Wikipedia rule that says it "must" go as you described. (From what I've read, too, the "Dr" version is the preferred version in British English.) Again, not worth a fight. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the "Mediation" thread at the bottom of my talk page. You might be able to help there as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You incorrectly placed your subpage User:Yukichigai/American in CG:LUT, I fixed it for you but please read the rules before categorizing.

If you are putting a usersubpage in this category make sure to enter your page in the category like this:

[[Category:Language user templates|Userpage user templates {{{your page name or abbreviation}}}]]

or for UBX subpages

[[Category:Language user templates|Userpage UBX {{{your page name or abbreviation}}}]]

or for Wikipedia official userboxes:

[[Category:Language user templates|Wikipedia {{your page name or abbreviation}}]]

-PatPeter 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, in the Dead Rising article you entered the "transceiver use" I was wondering could you use official media links such as Gamespot, Ign or other sources, you can still say that it had fan impact but it would be more beneficial to the article if it was backed up with media sources. Otherwise, I will have to remove it as "it is not had a big impact like small text has, it is just an annoyance". --WarDragon 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the discussion on the talk page, media links are not the end-all be-all for the purposes of establishing fan reaction. The provided fan-based sources are reliable in this context, though there could certainly be no harm in providing more.

As to your assertion that you will "have to" remove the information, if you do that I will "have to" revert you for removing properly sourced material. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be the bad guy here and I am not saying you are either; all I would like is for the section done up a bit better. See I have decided that I am going to make the Dead Rising article FA or A standard work. But while I was looking at the FA Video Game Articles, none of them have what you are defending (to be honest some don't even have an “issue and controversies” page). All their information is sourced by reliable media sources, and I remember somewhere someone defended the game media sources saying he would rather trust "a "sometimes" un or bias group of people then trust fans who ramble united”

I noticed that you have included two new sources from reputable sources, so thank you. But I was wondering if you could simplify the fan section part, just a bit. It just seems that the fan section is more dominate than the first part and needs a balance between the two.--WarDragon 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey I think you should know that someone called Zscout360 has blocked the List of Episodes article. Can you lift it or do you know someone who will. Seeing as how it is still being discussed on the talk page and one one the users violated the 3RR rule I would think the ban should be lifted.

I had some bad expiences with the wikipedia bureaucracy in the last week and am beginning to see it all as a lost cause. You seem to have a better grasp on procedure than I do, so maye you could do it. We can't let this type of thing stand.annoynmous 06:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you, but I doubt the page will be unprotected, at least to restore the images. Nothing is going to change until there is a clear-cut, unambiguous, and most importantly explicit decision on whether or not "list" articles like List of Heroes episodes can have images next to the episode listings. In the meantime, however, I am going to pursue a review of the "to keep fair-use images out" rationale for protecting articles. (That would be the rational Zscout370 (talk · contribs) used, but it has been used numerous times elsewhere) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, keep soldiering on brother. I really like these images and would like them to stay. Why does wikipedia always need to screw up a good thing to satisfy some bureaucrtic nonsense.

I mean talk about taking the rules a little too far. It's not like these guys are about get sued or anything. I personally think this whole "well were just following the rules" line is a bunch of crap. I think there are some people who just plain don't like the images and there hiding behind policy so they can enforce there opinion.

I tell you, stuff like this really depresses me, and makes me think all those people are right when they talk about wikipedia having a hive mind mentality.

Well anyway, don't back down man for anything. Fight this thing and don't let them bully you into submission. annoynmous 07:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nathanexplosioncropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Tony Sidaway 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Metalocalypse Jean-Pierre.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Tony Sidaway 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I wrongly believed those to be orphans. It's weird, because when I test with whatlinkshere I see no article links, but the images are certainly in the article at present. As these images are supposed to have a fair use justification for each occurrence anyway, could you please write them for those two images, being careful to name the article and any other articles in you think which their use is justified? --Tony Sidaway 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The same thing seems to have happened to those Bones episode screenshots, which I believed to have been orphaned because whatlinkshere shows no links. Thanks for fixing those. I'll notify Peregrine of the discrepancy. --Tony Sidaway 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yarp. I'm thinking WhatLinksHere needs to be revamped to work better with images. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm... I think your last edit on User talk:SashaGrey3 left an incomplete sentence there. Care to take a second look? Tabercil 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not incomplete. There's another part to the sentence that wasn't sent via Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Yukichigai, um, I know we've had our differences (the nav box or something like that), but I really appreciate what you've done to help in Day Break. This person has accused me of lying, dictating policy. You should see the two messages on my talk page, and his edit summary in Six Degrees'. Anyway, I just really appreciate your help ;) , and good day to you ;p .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

'twern't nuthin, ma'am.

Wait, what differences? I think there was some minor thing about numbering or something, once. Maybe. I can't remember. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it was this, or something like that. Oh, oops, I meant had, not have in the topic title. Also, no need for any apologies, but Illyria is a character from Angel, but I'm a guy :P .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Backmask, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Backmask seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Backmask, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: make sure to watch all the redirects you create, lest some nobody band swoop in and hijack the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your edits to List of Magic: The Gathering keywords, I saw Sjakkelle's comments and thought hmm, that could be a valid concern, I'll see what I can do, and then I see you've already done a fair job of it. So thank you very much! FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you use a substed template to bypass the 255 character limit on user signatures? That limit was added due to complaints about disruptive, over-long or -complex signatures, and your signature, which includes four different colors and links to two personal essays, seems to be a canonical example of what it was intended to reign in. Your signature is three and a half lines of solid code when I view the source of a talk page.

I would appreciate it if you would use a more concise signature, respecting Wikipedia's rules for use signatures. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked WP:SIG; it respects the rules just fine. The 255 character limit is arbitrary, not directed by policy. Once policy actually says "your signature can only be 255 characters" I'll stop using the substed sig file. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a very long discussion of whether signatures should be limited, for aesthetic, technical, and user-access issues. That limitation was added because of that discussion, and it is intended to be an actual limit; it is not merely a technical limitation. You can read more about this here and here, which led to the implementation of this limit.

I don't want to get in a big fight over something this silly, but your signature is currently disruptive, and exploits a workaround to bypass an intentional limitation that was implemented for good reasons. I would hope you would voluntarily comply with that limitation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's really part of an intentional limitation, then WP:SIG needs to be updated to reflect that. Currently the workaround is permissable; at the very least it makes it more convenient to update one's sig, as I can just edit a page and see what my code looks like without having to deal with the rest of the preferences page. However, now that you've brought up the length of my sig I am noticing some things which I thought I had taken out. (I'd created a shorter version that looked the same) I'll shorten it a bit, at least the code. No reason why I can't use shortcuts and stuff for most of this. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can update WP:SIG, if that's what you'd like. The limit is intentional.

Substing your sig from a template is fine (although if I were you I'd have it protected when you're not editing it, so it doesn't get vandalized); substing your sig to bypass the limit is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the new sig; it's still a bit long. Is there a reason you're using four different colors for your sig? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sort of related: in User:Yukichigai/Viewpoints and Arguments you state that WP:FUC #3 doesn't preclude use of multiple items, particularly in lists of episodes. #3 has since been split into 3a and 3b, to make it clear that one should be used in lieu of many and none should be used in lieu of one, and It is my current understand (not my personal opinion, mind) that episode lists and other lists of products should not have individual non-free images for each entry in the list. I don't know where the latter was determined, so I can't really cite anything for you. (Totally out of character for me, I know. ¬_¬) I just know that that's the general standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's covered by FUC #8, not #3. Images in episode tables usually run afoul of that "purely decorative" designation in #8. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to let you know. Such images haven't been allowed on episode lists, league lists, and discographies. You link Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists (a largely inconclusive old discussion) to support the claim that "The theory that WP:FUC #3 specifically prohibits the use of identifying images for each episode/character/section/etc. has been outright disproven," when the use of identifying images for each episode isn't allowed.

I want to avoid the all-too-common situation of:

These images need to be deleted, per WP:FUC.

What about List of stuff with lots of non-free images?

Well, that violates the policy too.

But my images help the article!

As may be, they aren't fair use.

Well, fine, if you're going to delete all my contributions, then I'm leaving Wikipedia!

>_<

This story is all too common, and the sad thing is that the offended image uploader is right to be angry, because enforcement of these rules has been spotty and lax. I don't want people to get the impression that such galleries are allowed, because they aren't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misconstruing my words, or at least not getting what I was going for. I'm not saying that such uses are always allowed, I'm just pointing out, using that discussion as an example, that there's nothing in FUC #3 that says specifically "you can't use images for each entry in X type of list". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may be misconstruing your words. My point is that they're easily misconstrued. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at what AfD means: Articles for deletion (note the bold word). Deletion means that the topic no longer exists, and that it can only be brought back by an administrator. I don't want that for the article. It may be worth including some day, so it is best to leave its history. There is also the fact that I believe that some of the content has made its way to other articles, so per the GFDL the article needs to be redirected to retain its history. Other than that, we would need a discussion to decide consensus.

That brings me to this question: do you believe that the article is worthy of inclusion, and are you willing to back that feeling in a discussion? If the answer is "no", then the article needs to remain redirected. If it is "yes", please tell me, so a discussion can happen, or you can start the discussion like you should have. TTN 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, redirection!=deletion, no matter what is saved or removed. I would have merged information, but it is already covered in that article in the greatest detail possible. Now, moving on to consensus, it is brought about by discussion. The three actual users that reverted the edit (including yourself) have no intention of taking part in the discussion. Per that, there is really nobody against the removal of the article, so my original application of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is still in place (WP:MERGE is not policy, nor is it the only way to do things).

Please note the last part of that: discuss. You were bold. You were reverted. Now you need to discuss it. It's not "BOLD, revert, revert again, discuss". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Because there is nobody interested in the article beyond forcing a silly discussion, I have been bold in redirecting it. I am willing to discuss why the article needs to go, but someone actually has to be willing to oppose it. The reason for that should be pretty obvious, as I cannot discuss with myself. Otherwise, going through a totally irrelevant process to obtain an unneeded consensus is silly, as even if I start a discussion, it will end up with a "silent consensus." So, unless someone wants to keep the article based upon its own merits, you have no reason to revert it. TTN 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure I do: it's against consensus. A silent consensus is still a consensus. So far you've provided NO justification for why your edits should stay in place despite being reverted by four separate editors. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss with who? You? Ben DeRoy? Clubjuggle? That random anon? None of them have expressed any sort of willingness to discuss the state of the article, and you have stated that you don't care. That leaves me to discuss with myself. Therefore, we still are in the BRD phase. And trust me, reverting to force a discussion is not valid. I'll see if I can dig the AN/I in a bit, but I recall an admin did the same exact thing, and nobody agreed with him until he provided a rational that had to do with keeping the article based upon an interest in it. TTN 00:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to discuss something when the page gets redirected. Fact of the matter is, you haven't made ANY effort to start a discussion, and because people can't somehow fit a rationale for keeping the article into an edit summary you take it to mean that nobody want's to discuss the matter. Try sticking a merge tag at the top of the article page and starting a discussion on the talk page; it seems to work for everyone else just fine. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me something to discuss, and I will discuss. I am not going to arbitrarily start a discussion because some people think that providing a merge tag automatically makes things peachy. As of yet, all of the interested parties have provided the rational of "You need to discuss, but I'm not interested in this article enough to bother." The anon is just one of those anons, Berserker79 wants it to go to AfD for no reason at all, Clubjuggle made it clear to me on my talk page that his only interest was to revert "vandalism" (which he later took back), and Ben DeRoy has made it clear that he justs wants a silly discussion. TTN 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, so even when people want to discuss, it's not a real discussion. Right. I'm done arguing about the merits of having a discussion. I've linked to a discussion that was already started on the talk page. Participate or leave the article alone. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not discussion; that is a user with a loose grip of redirection and deletion, such as yourself. TTN 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yukichigai, please read User talk:Clubjuggle#User talk TTN. Don't call people you're in a content dispute with vandals. — Malcolm (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In response, I suggest you read the edit history of List of enemies in Doom, in which three other editors identify his edits as vandalism. If it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck.... -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If four editors called this vandalism, would that mean I'm a vandal? — Malcolm (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't bother to justify your edits beyond "I'm right, you're wrong" it sure as hell does. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone objected and reverted and/or left a message on my talk page, I would explain better. Apparently, no one did. And I don't think I said nor "I'm right, you're wrong" (albeit, it may have been somewhat WP:BITEish, which I didn't intend).

Back to TTN's actions: users are allowed to remove anything from their talk page per WP:USER (unless they replace it with something like "F you, I'm gonna vandalize anyway", obviously).

Just because a certain amount of people think something's vandalism, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. To quote from WP:VAND: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." — Malcolm (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not saying you did that, I'm just pointing out that it's not just what the edit does so much as what the consensus is on the change itself that determines whether or not it's vandalism.

Just noticed the bit about warnings. Not sure where I got the idea they had to stay.

Frankly, that definition of vandalism is crap; it requires proving intent, which in most situations is impossible. Blanking a page is still blanking a page; if it goes against consensus or otherwise detracts from the quality of Wikipedia and the editor has been made aware of those facts, it's vandalism. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Vandalism is policy, so it would be pretty difficult to change the definition of it. Sorry for the misunderstanding in the first part. — Malcolm (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "crap" is that it inaccurately sums up the policy. From the blanking section, vandalism is defined as: "Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." I don't think it can be any more clear than that. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I came into this discussion from an entirely different fork, but I will say that I do not agree with your application of vandalism in this instance. Merging a page does not fit the definition of page blanking, or rewriting. Also, you are correct in that silence is a consensus - it is a consensus of "agree" or "yes." If TTN merged this page, and there was no discussion when his merge was reverted, then the consensus was that the merge should stand. -- Elaich ^talk 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned repeatedly, it's only a merge if you retain some of the information from the article. TTN's actions retained exactly none of the information of the article, making it a page blanking, not a merge. Additionally, a silent consensus is always an agree, true, but that agree goes with the majority of the editors involved in the dispute. Since the dispute was 7 editors reverting the actions of TTN, it's safe to say the "agree" goes to "leave the article the F%$# alone." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings - as follow-up to your cleanup concerns about the movie ratings infobox, I did some prototyping and testing with possible changes. Seems there is a Wiki software bug that causes a distortion when infoboxes are stacked (for example, section edit links are relocated to inappropriate locations). The infobox by itself was not the problem, but the stacking of two or more of them.

The solutions I've found so far are

1. Move the ratings ibox to another section, sufficiently out of the way of the top infobox;
2. Enclose the multiple infoboxes into a table.

For an example of #2 (combined with a collapsible ratings infobox), please review this test page. If you feel this approach is useful to resolve the infobox problems, I can update the template. However, some work would need to be done on the movie articles to implement #1 and #2. Dl2000 01:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the list of things I care about it ranks somewhere near the bottom. I can't find another reference so you can do as you wish in line with WP policies. Best wishes. --Stephen 04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be added. Is it proper for me to simply add myself or should you, as the initiator, add me. IMHO, wholesale redirection (usually without any merging) is not helping make the encyclopedia better. My other concern is the bias shown toward fiction, and especially toward specific types of fiction. It seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Ursasapien (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, you probably shouldn't be getting involved in a discussion with Jack Merridew on the Arbitration page, since it's specifically noted in the how to that the request page isn't the place for discussion. It might piss the arbitrators off a bit, and the last thing you want is to not be able to weigh in if and when the case is accepted. (Or have your opinion discounted because "that dude doesn't know when to stop") Besides, you gotta save something for the actual case page itself. :P -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I just added numbers from a graph. It was not intended to be a response to anybody. I don't have any intention of continuing a discussion. It is important evidence to demonstrate that the problem is of grand scale involving many articles and users. My post is intended to demonstrate only that. -- Cat ^chi? 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd toss you a barnstar for bringing this to arbitration, if that wouldn't inflame tensions even further. Thank you for recognizing a genuine issue, and especially for the work and persistence it took bring it to light. Apathy of the public is at least as big an enemy here as it is in a democracy. --Kizor 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages about living persons are not spaces for idle speculation and rumor-mongering. FCYTravis 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they're places for discussion of the content of the article and fact-checking. You're assuming bad faith here; the editor probably is legitimately wondering if the gentleman has killed himself, not "rumor-mongering". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! I saw your report to WP:AIV. Since the editor made no further edits after the warning, no block was issued. There was some discussion, though. If you didn't see it, the last edit before the report was removed is here. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, good to know what finally happened. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right[3]. "Certain" crime statistics is the correct phrasing. It was an oversight on my part. Please forgive my carelessness. Phyesalis (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yukichigai, just wanted to give you a friendly tip that on disambiguation pages, you're only supposed to have one link per line, that way, users don't get confused with the amount of links. Users will go to a disambiguation page, usually looking to find something specific, so there isn't really a need to link to every unknown term. See WP:MOSDAB for more information about disambiguation styles. :) --Dan Leveille^TALK 16:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said to other; Please do NOT add information that cannot be verified through reliable sources. IMDB does not count as a reliable source as it depends on it's user's contribution (not unlike Wikipedia). Also, nowhere did I asume bad faith, and upholding policy is exempt from 3RR. Now please asume some good faith yourself and just wait until the BBC confirms the series premiere. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 18:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

I feel it unnecessary to warn Edokter on the Torchwood article, for two reasons:

1. He's an admin.
2. There's an unwritten rule in the Doctor Who wikiproject to let violations like this slide. If there wasn't, I'd've been blocked many times over.

Thanks, Will ^(talk) 18:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nathanexplosioncropped.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)