Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::Yeah, right. While people will revert some edits I should say with a smile "good job"?--] (]) 03:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, right. While people will revert some edits I should say with a smile "good job"?--] (]) 03:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::'''Reverts''' Nope. Ask, "why did you revert my edit?" —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 03:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::'''Reverts''' Nope. Ask, "why did you revert my edit?" —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 03:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
::::::O' yeah, all of it is above this discussion, take a look please. . Ryan Vesey used to say that: even though that I do make pointless (in their opinion) edits, reverting them is as pointless...--] (]) 03:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You were the one who tried to make Category:American novelists a container category, and even though that was oveturned because of the fact that List of American novelsits for now belongs there, no one has directly challenged the general sentiment. However some editors have tried special pleading for a few specific cases, normally through presenting no cohenent arguments and special overturnings. The first 10 articles in the category are already in by century sub-cats, but have all been returned multiple times without any real justification against the diffusion, sometimes by people who have made no arguments against the by century categories. I am afraid to try again for fear of getting into an edit war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I keep telling people to nominate categories for deletion, but the person who does most of this actually says they think the by century categories should exist. So I really don't know. There is talk of an RfC on the American novelists category talk page, but I really do not see an RfC as the answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
mass nominations should be grouped together is one
Since you are making the same copy and paste arguments for dozens/hundreds of articles, just list them altogether, so its easier to respond to. And all Misplaced Pages articles for a television episode have screenshots. Please don't go around individually nominated ten thousand articles. You understand more about the episode when you see what the characters and scenery and whatnot look like. Dream Focus01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Mass noms If you do that, then you have to untangle the discussions about the merits of each individual fair use rationale, and it is definitely not true that all article on Misplaced Pages about television episodes have screenshots. See WP:Files for deletion/2012 November 18, e.g. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Do to lack of people noticing and participating, you have managed to mass delete massive numbers of images over a period of time. Even when people do show up and say keep, the administrator might rule in your favor anyway, depending on their personal bias. If all articles are going to have their images deleted from them, then this should be discussed at the village pump. Get more feed back. Dream Focus01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you have nothing else to do. No matter, over time most, I suspect will just have new images upladed by another editor. Enjoy padding your edit count Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I respect your good faith in nominating this large batch of Star Trek images for deletion per WP:NFCC, but I agree with Dream Focus that something like this needs to be reviewed via a wider community discussion before anyone takes any action on these proposed deletions. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)05:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
'Okay But I don't understand this at all: NFCC is clear and has been stable for the nine years that I've been here, plus the onus is on the uploader. Why is there a need for centralized discussion when it's patently clear that many of these files (if not all of them) fail with NFURs? What is the venue that you propose? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I personally think that both the nomination of these images and the fact that you purposely chose not to group them as a mass nomination are a violation of WP:POINT. My advice would have been to nominate one image, see its end result, then go from there. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
FURs Each fair use nomination needs to rest on its own merits, so there is no way that I can see group nominating them. This isn't like CFD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It's all about the efficiency of the deletion process. How will Justin get his work done if other people question them? Damnit, these articles won't delete themselves, you know! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I agree that quite a few of the episode images are not going to meet the FUR and can be deleted. However, you did run through the ones where they aren't placed for illustrative purposes. Basically any of them that are Good Articles and have been promoted since November last year will have been worked on by me, and I either updated the image purpose (and in some cases changed the image) or simply removed it in each case if no image was required to further the understanding of the reader. Essentially I included fair use images on the basis that if something is described in the text of the article but is more easily understood by the use of an image then it was suitable to be used. This obviously doesn't happen in most cases. The problem is with the Star Trek episode articles is that the vast, vast majority of them are simply plot descriptions right now, and so cannot possibly meet that requirement. Also some follow a certain pattern - i.e. if there is an image of one or more main characters not doing anything particularly unusual then it'll never meet a FUR. I wouldn't oppose deleting all images from the episode articles where they don't have any obvious use, even if the article is simply a plot and not much else - because the images are easy enough to replace due to online resources and so when someone eventually expands the article they can always add one back under an appropriate FUR if required (one that isn't based on illustration). Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Context I did, in fact, take a look at the context of these images and decided to not nominate some that displayed something genuinely unique. On the other hand, there are instances (e.g. File:In_a_Mirror,_Darkly_(ENT_episode)_Part_I.jpg) where free equivalents are in the article displaying the same thing as the non-free media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Image deletions
Thanks for flooding my talk page with fifty image deletion notices - I think ONE message probably could have done the trick. Likewise, when you flood my talk page you also flood my email with stupid alerts from Misplaced Pages telling EACH TIME you do it. For the record, I don't care about images I uploaded that you feel you need to purge from Misplaced Pages for whatever reason, so you can quit spamming my talk page. Have fun deleting things. Cyberia23 (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay If you don't want me to post to your talk, that's fine but it's hardly spam. If you want to know why the images should be deleted, you can read my rationale and compare it to the standards at WP:NFCC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Koavf. With regards to the comment above about putting a lot of deletion notices on one talk page, {{Fdw-multi}} could be used instead. According to the documentation for Twinkle, the notify option can be turned off. Then you could just notify the editor at the end with the combined template. Just a thought. If you already knew all of this was a possible option, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
O.K. You should see what Rkitko decided to do!: He decided to harass me here. After what I warned him here. And he opened a discussion about my behavior without my knowledge here. Can you talk to him about this, because I just can't discuss it with a guy who hates me!--Mishae (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure That's probably the most accurate. You should only go there if you've followed the guidelines on that page (e.g. posting directly to the user's talk, just ignoring the situation to see if it goes away, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted your unexplained deletions. Please leave comments at Talk:Joanne Gair regarding FUR complaints. I will address them.
2006 North Korea Flooding talk page redirect
Why?
Because that talk page, as it was an as you restored it to, is broken....the page is in "WikiProject Korea banners with incorrect coding", which is why I noticed it
Because a 'talk page' for a redirect is pointless anyhow...about the only way you would land on it is by noticing that it is causing an error.
Because I come across them (and change them to redirects) on a regular basis, simply because an admin suggested it as a 'more convenient' way to fix the problem than tagging them for G8 speedy delete (as it doesn't require admin action)
Because there are /thousands/ of pointless orphan talk pages like this spamming the hell out of 'cleanup' categories (I've seen them be a third of the category)
Because you're specifically /not/ supposed to create Talk pages for 'non-article' pages (redirects, categories) just to hold WikiProject banners, and 'effectively' doing the same thing in 'reverse' with a page move is just as silly.
Shall I go on?
By the way, it is specifically stated in WP:TALK: "Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use."
FWIW, a revert with a summary of "Why" is inappropriate, especially using an automated tool. You should have a /reason/ for edits with Twinkle, not just 'randomly preserving the status quo' for no actual reason. To quote TW:ABUSE "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."
Glancing at your edit history, I see that you /habitually/ create these pointless talk pages with AWB, and don't even bother to fill out the WikiProject banners properly. The only thing this accomplishes is to spam the database with pointless crap, and spam the ALREADY MASSIVELY BACKLOGGED 'unassessed articles' categories with useless cruft.
As a side note (I just noticed this) if you bothered to read the documentation for the project banners, you would know that they are only to be placed on ARTICLE TALK PAGES, not talk pages for categories. You are really giving the impression (from your edit history, userpage, and what's on this talk page) of (IMO) disrupting wikipedia with automated editing tools in an attempt to pad your edit count. Revent (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk pages First off I think you misunderstand WP:TALK. I created the talk page initially as I created the article: I didn't make a talk page to a page that didn't otherwise exist.
Why do you think that the Redirect class is pointless?
Which project banners were not filled out correctly?
The redirect class is not pointless...creating a talk page just to hold wikiproject banners (and nothing else) is pointless, and against policy. I see from your edit history where you've literally created over 500 Template talk pages containing nothing but a Wikiproject template in just two days, literally thousands of Category Talk templates as well, all of which have NOTHING on them but a Wikiproject template....which is pointless. It's just spamming the database with useless crap. "Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use." (directly from WP:TALK) is pretty easy to understand....don't create tens of thousands is even easier.
The 'broken' template I was talking about was, literally, the only one on the talk page, and as I said, the talk page was in the "WikiProject Korea banners with incorrect coding" category.
The /specific/ thing that it incredibly irritating is that when you create talk pages for redirects you are spamming the fuck out of the 'unassessed articles' categories, because you aren't filling out the templates. This /vastly/ increases the pain in the ass level of trying to work on that backlog, as EVERY SINGLE ONE of those redirect talk pages is 'categorized' wrong. From what I've seen, I'd estimate this applies to about a third of the 150,000+ unassessed biographies.
Looking at just your recent edits, within the last hour you redirected the Brass Tactics article, immediately created a talk page for the redirect to only hold wikiproject banners, and (of course) broke the "WikiProject Alternative music" banner with an invalid parameter (the class=redirect).
And yes, I have seen the edits where you nominated a page for deletion, and then IMMEDIATELY created an empty Talk page for it. Please explain how there is even the slightest point to that?
If you look at template:WPBannerMeta the DEFAULT behavior of ALL WikiProject banners is to NOT have a 'redirect' class unless the particular project has defined a 'custom class mask' to create one. Specifically, if you look at the documentation for template:WikiProject Biography, you will see that 'redirect' is NOT a valid class. Even more specifically, if you look at Template:WikiProject Biography/class, the 'custom class mask' for Biographies, 'redirect' is again not listed.
You are responsible for your edits with AWB, and that /includes/ not 'automatically' breaking shit.
To be honest, as I mentioned above, these 'talk pages for redirects' are candidates for G8 speedy deletion {{db-talk}} and (again as I mentioned) I was specifically told 'please just make these redirects instead of trying to delete them because now that they exist it would be pointless' by an admin.
BTW, using Twinkle to revert good faith edits is highly offensive, as you're basically calling the other editor a vandal, and with the edit summary you used is /specifically/ 'abuse of anti-vandalism tools'. Not ignoring that point would probably be a good thing if you wan to have a 'friendly' conversation. Revent (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Tools If you want me to be respectful to you, a good start is being respectful to me.
WT:TALK does not refer to creating talk pages to hold WikiProject banners. I don't understand how on the one hand you can say that creating talk pages for WikiProject banners is pointless but on the other hand say that the Redirect class is not pointless. To be frank, you don't understand WT:TALK and you're contradicting yourself.
Do you know of any instances other than {{WPKOREA}} where I added a banner that resulted in the addition of some kind of maintenance category? My sneaking suspicion is that there isn't one (or there are few), making the rest of your gripe irrelevant. I haven't added a bunch of redirects for assessment because (again, correct me if I'm wrong) no banner with the class Redirect requires assessment. E.g. the example you gave of Talk:Brass Tactics includes {{album}} which accepts class=Redirect and {{WPALT}} which doesn't: neither one is put into a maintenance category. Show me a maintenance category that I have populated or else you're just rambling on about nothing in particular. I don't see anywhere that I've added {{WPBIO}} with class=Redirect and when you do, it is not added to Category:Unassessed biography articles. So what on Earth are you talking about?
The purpose of nominating something for deletion and then adding appropriate banners is two-fold: on the one hand, something might not get deleted. Why would I want to come back to it then and add the banners? On the other hand, marking it with a banner allows bots to add it to deletion discussions or possibly just gives it some visibility to users (such as yourself) who stroll through these WikiProject categories. As you can see, what's really pointless is making the talk page a redirect to match the article space, as then no one would be watching it in case something funny happens to it. Also, sometimes redirects are turned into articles and sometimes articles are turned into redirects.
You're being a fussy crank here on my talk. Calm down, make some sense, and we can discuss this like adults. If you want to come here to scream profanity at me and ramble on about things that I never did or which are irrelevant, then what is your point? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Respect, lol...you're pointedly ignoring my /specific/ criticism of your use of Twinkle, the 'widely agreed to' opinion that using 'anti-vandalism' tools to revert good faith edits is HIGHLY offensive (as it basically calls the other person a vandal), etc. When people 'pick and choose' what they want to respond to, and ignore criticisms of their behavior, it tends to irritate me, especially when I was pointing out that using Twinkle in that manner is EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED IN THE TWINKLE DOCS as 'abuse of an anti-vandalism tool.' The 'temperature' of my comments didn't go up until you made it clear you were going to ignore that, and about half of the rest of what I said. Also, changing the conversation from my 'use of fuck for emphasis' to (silly) personal attacks (calling me a 'fussy crank') isn't exactly helpful, and makes your 'complaint' pretty much a joke.
The point of mentioning the 'listasbot' was more the tone of the discussion, actually, and pointing out the 'obvious' consensus that 'incomplete redirects' are bad. You can (trivially) find many other discussions about 'incomplete redirects' where the same consensus was expressed (RFCs, etc)....that 'null content' talk pages for redirects are candidates for G8 speedy, but that 'completing the redirect' is 'cheaper' on the database.
This has been the case for YEARS.
There are literally /thousands/ of examples in your edit history of you creating 'empty' talk pages for 'non-article' pages. I'm not going to make a list unless this becomes a matter of 'providing evidence'.
FYI, 'listasbot' was deactivated for 'technical reasons', not because of removal of it's approval. If the /admin/ who owns it turned it back on tomorrow, it would still be a 'approved bot', and it's EXPLICIT PURPOSE was to complete the type of 'incomplete redirects' that you are creating, by making the exact same type of edits as what you reverted.
The 'redirect class' is not pointless FOR THOSE WIKIPROJECTS THAT TRACK THEIR REDIRECTS, which is very few of them. It's trivial to glance at the documentation for the banner or the 'assessment page' for the project and see what parameters are actually supported. It is YOUR responsibility to make sure that your 'automated' edits are correct, not mine to dig through the documentation for you.
Your example of Talk:Kim Jong Il specifically....per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale the 'redirect' class is not supported by the Biography wikiproject (it's use in that banner is 'broken'), and that /particular/ edit added that talk page to the 'Biography articles without listas parameter' error tracking category (a subset of 'Misplaced Pages backlog', 'Biography articles needing attention', AND 'Misplaced Pages template parameter issues'). Maybe you'd like to retry with an example that /didn't/ break things?
Your habitual use of AWB to do so is disruptive behavior, as you are making 'automatic' mistakes (in the thousands) that someone else will have to fix.
Instead of making 'blanket statements' that "I don't understand" actually debating the point would, you know maybe actually accomplish something. The talk page policy says to not create talk pages just to hold header templates....my assumption (since you haven't actually tried to make an argument) is that you're trying to 'wikilawyer' that 'banner templates' aren't specifically mentioned, which is WP:POINTy behavior.
Given that 'your' chosen example of a 'good' edit /specifically/ added that page to a backlogged maintenance category, it would be a waste of time to dig for more examples. You're honestly not giving the impression that you have any intent of listening, and your history reinforces that. Revent (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Still? I don't see how your tone was respectful previously but that's neither here nor there: I'll just take it for granted that you were and move on. I also can't sympathize with being "highly offended" by someone using Twinkle to revert me versus manually reverting, but okay--you were highly offended by that. I'll take it for granted that you don't want to be reverted using semi-automatic tools, although they are not exclusively intended for fighting vandalism, nor did I ever claim that you were being a vandal.
"the 'obvious' consensus that 'incomplete redirects' are bad." ???
If you're granting that class=Redirect is useful for projects that support it then why are you complaining about totally irrelevant banners that I didn't add (e.g. {{WPBIO}})? Most of the redirects I have ever tagged are for {{album}}, which does support it. In the case of (e.g.) {{WPALT}} it is simply tagged as NA class which is not a problem. As far as I am aware it is only with a handful of banners (e.g. {{WPKOREA}} and {{WPFILM}}) that class=Redirect generates some kind of problem tracking category and out of the tens of thousands of redirect tags that I've made, less than 1/10% are the problematic ones. So what is your point? If you do something right 99.99% of the time, it is reasonable for someone to harangue you over the >0.01% where you don't?
Evidently, you did not understand my point in tagging Talk:Kim Jong Il: If it is tagged {{WPBIO|class=redirect}}, then it is not added to any tracking category nor is any extra work made for anyone for being tagged as a redirect. So again, I do not understand why you are complaining nor why you ever brought up the biography project: I have never tagged for it and if I did, then your gripe about tracking categories would still be irrelevant...
"Your habitual use of AWB to do is disruptive behavior, as you are making 'automatic' mistakes (in the thousands) that someone else will have to fix." When? Where? What are you talking about?
"The talk page policy says to not create talk pages just to hold header templates" Exactly my point. You then want to cast me as WIKILAWYERING and POINTING and whatever else when you came to complain to me about something that you didn't understand in the first place... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
(refer to the VP convo, where I pointed out the specific categories that you added that page to)
It is entirely possible that I am lumping you into the same class as other editors who create 'similar' issues, and if so, I apologize. To be honest, given the 'massive' number of your edits, and the difficulty of actually 'finding' these by the method I use, figuring out 'who' is doing this exactly 'how much' is basically impossible. That's why I tried to 'diffuse' this into a less specific, and less 'heated', conversation on the pump. It's not that this is 'wrong' in specific, 'chosen' cases, such as when a wikiproject tracks redirects, it's that doing it 'automatically' creates issues that other editors end up having to manually fix.
My use of links to your edit history wasn't meant to 'single you out', it was just the only real way I knew of to point out the exact issue of 'talk pages being created semi-automatically just to hold wikiproject banners'. That would be why I didn't initially use your name. Revent (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated, 'style' point.
Please don't create tens of thousands of 'redirected' transclusions from template space. (See here) They are for convenience when editing manually, and it causes extra load on the server.
The only 'evidence' would be having the exact same point made to me, with the statement that it 'slows down page display', by a 'technically adept' admin....I'd have to dig for exactly when it was. He was also referring to using 'aliases' for the banner fields (like importance instead of priority, or 'short versions' of the field names. A 'specific' example is that if you use 'y' instead of 'yes', the server has to translate it into the 'standard' version every time the template is displayed.
It's something that wouldn't really matter in 'individual' cases, but would when done on a large scale....for instance, 'what links here' on {{WikiProject Biography}} will have to track backward through the thousands of extra transclusions.
The point has also been made various places that the lack of 'uniformity' in banner template usage causes difficulties for bots...again, I don't have 'specific' pointers without tedious searching, it's just a 'comment' that I have seen repeatedly made.
Please don't think that I'm specifically trying to harass you...I'm not. Other than your use of Twinkle to revert me (and I understand /why/ giving the number of edits you do, it's just 'rude') I don't really have a /problem/ with what you do....it's more that I think that the 'scale' of it emphasizes flaws in the way that policies are actually written. I do a lot of 'cleanup' type work, and the 'semi-automatic' processing makes things more difficult...specifically, banners on 'redirects' do not track the 'assessment' status of the actual article, and have to be manually fixed to remove the redirect from the 'wrong' category. When you're talking about a category like 'unassessed bios', that /already/ has hundrededs of thousands of articles, having 'misspelling redirects' added is distanctly unhelpful. Revent (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Knapp, I apologize for not introducing myself, before, but I really had no reason to, as you make fantastic edits and are a great role model for all of us, while I'm really but a peon. Recently, however, I did stumble across this link and, having heard of your occassional unemployment (I'm unemployed right now, and I don't intend to imply that you need money) along with your substantial expertise in leading extremely successful Misplaced Pages Education Program projects, I thought that you might be interested. I certainly was, myself, and I think that the foundation would be very fortunate to have you on board as the Director of that program. Do you have any interest? I do, unfortunately, have to specifically ask that you shoot me a TW TB msg when you reply to my user page, as I'm terrible at monitoring pages. Anyhow, let me know what you think, and happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you I can't speak for how fantastic my edits are (certainly some users would disagree and some of my edits are decidedly not fantastic), but I'm flattered by the opportunity. I would definitely be interested although I'd be surprised if I'm the best man for the job. What do you recommend I do next? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Well, I think there's great benefit in any type of edit that makes the encyclopedia better. Anyhow, that next step is decidedly easy: apply here. I'm assuming that you have a LinkedIn profile, which makes it a bit easier, just throw together a really nice cover letter, upload a resume, and there you go. I might chat with Sage Ross, too. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Citation style I agree that citations should be put into templates (that way, their formatting can be uniform, users can choose exactly how they're displayed with preferences, and machines can read them), but there is no consensus that they must be used and editing back and forth on citation style is discouraged. If there is already an established citation style on a page you should leave it as-is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hm, confused, so when it comes to taxoboxes there is a consensus (which I depsise), but when it comes to citation style, its up to you???--Mishae (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Consensus This is similar to (e.g.) WP:ENGVAR: there are several national varities of English and there are several citation styles. When Misplaced Pages was first being built, no one chose any one variety of English to enforce upon everyone nor any one citation style. Entire articles had been written using various types and anyone attempting to go through these articles changing "favour" to "favor" was not adding to the encyclopedia, but simply rearranging its content based on his personal preferences. If there is an established style on a certain page then it should stay until such time as when one citation style is determined for the entire site. See Misplaced Pages:CITE#Citation_style. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the sooner we start using one citation for the entire site the sooner people will get the point which one is better. Sure, Misplaced Pages have lots of varieties on English but they fall under one category: They are all part of English Misplaced Pages. Sure, for that we will need to eliminate users like Rkitko that will try to continue on their pointless quest to ensure various citations (don't think the term elimination is used here as a threat, just a term instead of block from editing or similar Misplaced Pages term). Another great idea, in Belarus they have 2 different Wikipedias, we can create 3 different Wikipedias too (Australian, British, and American one), that way everyone will be happy. :)--Mishae (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
So apparently our little conflict is to be continued, yesterday I edited Alopecurus pratensis and by adding conversions decided to remove {{italic title}} which in my opinion is pointless (considering that not all articles have it). User Rkitko partialy reverted my edit by puting it back and wrote in the article history "please do not remove it!". I reverted his edit, saying that his edit was pointless and so that he wont yell at me. If he will continue on his stupid {{italic title}} quest shall I go to A/NI?--Mishae (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Italics Per Misplaced Pages:ITALICS#Italic_face, this should be italicized. I know that it might seem confusing or difficult to edit here—it seems like you keep on ending up being frustrated by conflicts—but once you see how certain style issues work, I'm sure that you'll find a way to comfortably navigate the rules that we have (which are, admittedly, pretty scattershot and complicated sometimes.) Let me know how else I can help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If I may interject, I have tried to explain the way {{italic title}} works on taxon articles but he has not yet showed and understanding of the concept. Plainly, and again, if the article is titled at the taxon name and that taxon is titled at something like the genus or species name and|name= in the taxobox is used, the article title will not be automatically italicized from the taxobox code. This is addressed at WP:TX#Italic page titles, which I have directed Mishae to before. Removing {{italic title}} on articles titled at their scientific name (when at the level of genus and below) where |name= is used in the taxobox results in an undesirable style, which is why I performed a partial revert of Mishae's edit. Rkitko16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me civily explain my reason for it removal: From my point of view, italic title is pointless because it doesn't italicize anything, since the italics are used in binomial name. Now, I did proposed the idea of removing |name= and italic title, because every editor and reader can see perfectly without it, not to mention not all articles use them, which means there is no consensus on it. Unfortunatelly user Rkitko thinks that because he is an admin he can do what ever hell he wants. And yes, the rules are infact confusing, and not only for newbies. :) Now, I would like to thank Justin for understanding, which user Rkitko (from my point of view) lacks off, by just tossing a "rule book"...--Mishae (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Mishae, apologies for the delay in a response, but I was trying to figure out the best way to word my reply. Let me begin by saying that what you wrote, Mishae, was not a civil explanation. You strayed far from an assumption of good faith, suggesting things about my motivations are conduct that are patently false. I have spent nearly a year patiently trying to explain consensus and common editing practices on taxoboxes, categories, navboxes, and {{italic title}}. After each discussion with me and with others who urged you to follow consensus, you ignored all good advice offered to you and continued to edit against consensus. For this you were blocked twice for disruptive edits to prevent further edits against consensus and, essentially, for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your refusal to understand consensus has been frustrating, though I've been happy to see your recent edits on taxoboxes have not included condensation of parameters onto a single line. Thank you for that; I'm glad we could finally come to an understanding.
That said, I'd like to respond to each of your points and hopefully help clear up your confusion on {{italic title}}, even though I have explained this many times before. Again, some articles on taxa use a vernacular name in the |name= parameter. There is no consensus on whether this parameter should reflect the article title. You're correct that if |name= is the same as |binomial= for a species article or if |name= is the same as |genus= for a genus article, then the removal of |name= will automatically italicize the taxobox's title and the article title if and only if the article title matches either |binomial= or |genus=. In this way, an article moved from a scientific name title to a vernacular name will no automatically longer italicize the title the moment it is moved. But as I've said before, sinking control of page title italicization to the taxobox template is confusing for new editors to figure out how the article title is being italicized. It's opaque template design, so it's often preferred to leave |name= with either a vernacular name or the scientific name and use {{italic title}} together so that it's very clear how to italicize and de-italicize an article title to every editor. But to be clear, the edit we're discussing here that I partially reverted, the |name= was in use and you removed {{italic title}}. By doing so, the article title was no longer displayed in italics. This is not desirable, so I partially reverted your edit. If you had removed both {{italic title}} and |name=, then the article title would have remained italicized, but this makes it harder for newer editors to figure it all out. Regardless, there appears to be no consensus on which approach to take so if {{italic title}} is present and the article title is italicized properly, there's no reason to remove it. If you would like to build consensus on the best approach so that we can have a discussion on the pros and cons of each, the best place to do that would be at Template talk:Taxobox.
Finally, I fully recognize that being an admin is WP:NOBIGDEAL and that the tools I have are to be used carefully but grant me no special privilege. I do not think that "because he is an admin he can do what ever hell he wants." I am just an editor like you. I'm sorry that you have this impression of me; I can only imagine that it is the result of our discussions on your talk page over the last year on your edits that I found troubling and my block of you after an AN/I discussion in which you were explicitly told to no longer edit against consensus with regard to taxobox line spacing and whitespace. You clearly have chosen to think of me as a bully - something that I aggressively disagree with and something that is not supported by any of our discussions. In each I have provided information, pleaded, cajoled, and implored you to follow consensus. I made you aware of the consequences; I never made threats. To remind you, this was our first interaction (you chose to respond elsewhere) and then this was our second conversation. While the discussions (as were subsequent discussions), nothing about it was particularly confrontational. I presented you with information, asked you to change your editing behavior to adopt the norms, another editor weighed in on taxobox line spacing and agreed with me, yet it wasn't until half a year later that you were finally blocked to prevent further disruptive edits like that. I'm glad we're past that, but I do not see any way you could possibly characterize our interactions as contentious, harassing, or bullying. Your characterization of me here was harsh and not based on any truth. As I've said before, not much bothers me but a misrepresentation of my character to others is not appreciated. I'd hope that you'd take some time to browse through our early discussions and reassess your feelings toward me. Note that it was your behavior and disruptive edits alone that got you blocked, not me. Regardless, bringing my name up in unrelated discussions just to drag my name through the mud isn't very civil or polite. An apology would be nice but not expected or requested - only on your own accord if that's truly how you feel. Cheers, Rkitko05:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, that was just my feeling, I didn't look into truth that much, because everyone have their own difinition on it. As far as adminship goes, O.K, lets say that on Russian Misplaced Pages every admin get a special privelege. Again, you might say that I assume bad faith or that I am not being truthful, but even user Psychiatrick will agree with me here. You can point out any rule you want but that wont help. How about you will point me out on some adsmins that were blocked by ArbCom?--Mishae (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
O.K. So I go more and more into a hot water with every admin here... Look here Under Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines I am allowed to edit my own comment... But this admin reverted my edit without looking into its history, after which I left him a friendly note here. I personally getting madder and madder here, its like I can't edit, I can't talk, and can't be trusted.--Mishae (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It's so much better to separate genre subcategories by type (EPs, live, soundtracks) from subgenres. I'm trying to standardize this but I can't if you always revert it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 21:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Subcategories I agree that there should be some method to this: there are subcategories for artist nationality, album type, and subgenre. The former should certainly be sorted with a space since it's a diffusing category, but I'm not sure about the other two. Maybe "+" for album types (EP, compilation, live, remix, soundtrack), and "*" for genres? I think there should be some discussion in a centralized place and a systematic method to applying it (which you know that I will do) but I don't want piecemeal solutions in the meantime. Do you want to discuss it at WT:ALBUM? Do you like the proposed alternative? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue with that. I don't think a discussion at the WikiProject is even necessary. Implement away. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing personal I appreciate you adorning my page with it, I'm just a little particular about how exactly my userpage is laid out (and I've been meaning to change that for years...) Thanks so much and please don't feel slighted. I'm glad to have been here as long as I have and done as much as I have. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't feel slighted, it's just as I said, I've never come across anybody who turned down one of these, that's all. I can understand about the user page, as everyone kinda treats that as their little corner of the Wiki world. Tell you what, I'll give you the award here on your talk page, and you can do with it as you wish be it here or your talk page or however you want to go about it. (Talk) Vjmlhds01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, apparently I am in another hot water, now this user, AndyTheGrump wants to block me for trolling and personal attacks! All I wanted to do is to talk with Jimbo about an issue, and now it turns out that I am trolling because a founder wont even reply! I don't understand why people hate me here, as a productive editor I should be welcome! This sounds a lot like WikiNazism of sorts...--Mishae (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In fairness, Mishae, you were called a troll because you called Jimbo a "lousy cash cow". Telling you to stop that isn't WikiNazism, it's common courtesy. AndyTheGrump doesn't want to block you (and isn't an admin so he couldn't even if he wanted to), he wants you to stop calling people names and stirring up trouble, and if a block is the only way to get you to stop, then so be it. To be honest, I think you would be well-advised to just stay away from the more "meta" areas of Misplaced Pages. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't have called him that if he would have not ignored my previous post, a diff of which I provided bellow of my second message... As far as common courtesy, hmm, maybe telling me about blocks everytime is annoying. Plus, the more users Misplaced Pages blocks the more people will hate this project. And its a fact. I understand that Misplaced Pages isn't for everyone, but its the admins and the ArbCom that make it that way. You see, I too came to Misplaced Pages with a feeling "great, I will write some articles and chat with nice people" whether they are admins or not. But it turns out that people love to block good, hard working editors, making room for some scum that ignores everything possitive and focuses only on how to block someone and find the reason to do so. Whats worse is that people are looking for personal attacks in every letter even if its not related to them. So, AndyTheGrump probably was afraid that someone will upset Jimbo here? Let me tell you (and him) as well, that I don't care if I insulted him or not, what I care is wheather or not he will reply to the message. Since he is a founder he should read the issue not just ignore it. See, it sounds like, he can ignore it because he is the boss, and I can't ignore every user??? Something is not right here!--Mishae (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I called Jimbo a "lousy cash cow", not AndyTheGrump. He should be advised that if its not related to him he shouldn't call anyone a troll!--Mishae (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
. Recently, however, I did stumble across this link and, having heard of your occassional unemployment (I'm unemployed right now, and I don't intend to imply that you need money) along with your substantial expertise in leading extremely successful Misplaced Pages Education Program projects, I thought that you might be interested. I certainly was, myself, and I think that the foundation would be very fortunate to have you on board as the Director of that program. Do you have any interest? I do, unfortunately, have to specifically ask that you shoot me a TW TB msg when you reply to my user page, as I'm terrible at monitoring pages. Anyhow, let me know what you think, and happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
_Part_I.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
