I find it odd that you are including in your evidence things that I'm openly admitting to on the talk page itself, such as the minor dispute with Freak. Are you that desperate to try to discredit me? Reposting stuff that I just said, trying to spin it around? Sorry, it's not going to work. -- Ned Scott04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Civility should be observed at all times especially on an RFC claiming that you are breaching the policy. I do not "discredit" people. I am merely posting a comment you made as additional evidence. Frankly I am confused with your comment. Would you mind elaborating? -- Catchi? 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to create an encyclopedia on the Wikia website called Turkopedia. It will be in English, and will be all about everything to do with Turkey and Turkish people.
Unfortunately I need at least 20 people (including me, so there's 19 people left) to assist me in this project. Would you like to take part?
Would it be okay if I went through the RFC and trimmed out stuff not directly related to your dispute? I think you would stand a better chance of achieving something useful if you did that. --Tony Sidaway18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could do that but I have some concerns... If you can address these, I'd be more than happy to do as you ask.
I want this to be resolved without the involvement of arbcom but that appears increasingly unlikely as Ned Scott's behaviour hasn't been improving at all and has been getting worse. His attitude is outright hostile now. He is displaying incivility even at the talk page of the RFC. When I point it out, he complained about it again in not a very civil tone.
Also, my complaint about Ned Scott isn't just about his behaviour towards me but his general behavior towards others such as yourself. If this does go to arbcom, I want to be able to present a "complete" rfc.
How about separating the evidence to two sections/lists? Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Not at all. You bring up things that are not issues and attack my character for your sig changes, and that's what it comes down to. My behavior on Wikipedia is fine, and finding a handful of examples out of thousands doesn't change reality. I might be harsh with you, but given the total nonsense you tend to put the community through, I'm doing pretty good. There will be no resolution, and no, there will be no arbcom. You've turned an RfC into an attack, plain and simple. You've blown up a minor issue way past what it should have been. I've taken minimal effort to defend myself in the RfC, simply because it's not worth the time. If you think you can throw an arbcom case at me, I'll be glad to prove you wrong on every point of your complaint. -- Ned Scott02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. -- Catchi? 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to, you do not need my permission for that. I trust you more than that. :) -- Catchi? 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I really think you should get rid of everything not directly related to the current dispute. There is a feeling that you're throwing the kitchen sink at him. Those matters are not really to be resolved on this RfC. --Tony Sidaway19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty much. It seems that Cat is using RFC as a step-towards-Arbcom, rather than an attempt to actually resolve anything. Regardless of whether that's his intent, it just looks iffy. I'm not sure how responsive the medcom is these days, perhaps one of them could intervene? >Radiant<12:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you could add a section at the bottom, "statement by Tony", that briefly explains what is actually going on here, without all the superfluosity. >Radiant<13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to mediate so long as Ned Scott maintains his current uncivil tone. Mediation can only work in a civil environment. -- Catchi? 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is my third and final request. The RfC will fail unless you permit me to edit the complaint to make a coherent description of the current dispute. If you do not grant me this request, I will have to remove my certification. --Tony Sidaway15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You are more than welcome to, you do not need my permission for that. I trust you more than that." means you are more than welcome to edit the rfc with or without my permission because I trust you. I do not understand why you put a "I will have to remove my certification" up there? -- Catchi? 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My fault, I didn't see your reply to my second request. I was saying I'd remove certification if the RfC remained in its current (unsatisfactory) form. --Tony Sidaway16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It was partially my fault too since I did not update the thread here and at my talk page. Simple misunderstandings... :) -- Catchi? 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have been closing requests in this area and that your bot has been actioning them. You may not be aware that your actions, such as here, are in conflict with the instructions on the page. I have no doubt that you have good intentions, but I'm going to ask that you please stop closing these requests and please stop performing the moves until such time as these requests are closed properly and listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. If you would like to discuss this, please respond here (not on my page) as I have added this page to my watchlist. --After Midnight000113:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Practically all of the cases were simple capitalization fixes/typos. I did not think further discussion on the specific cases were necesary. In the future I can wait for debates to be moved to that page in question. I just wanted to accelerate things as the backlog was filling up unnecessarily. I can however do as you ask though I really feel cutting back on bureaucracy would be beneficial. -- Catchi? 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not one of too much bureaucracy. Speedy exists so that something doesn't need to wait the entire 5 days for a decision, but speedies do still need to wait the 48 hours prescribed. Items are not considered backlogged until after the 48 hours is completed. Like I said, I know your intentions are good, so I don't want to make a big deal of this, it is just that sometimes even the obvious ones do receive legitimate objections during that 48 hour window. --After Midnight000117:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should stay as they are. Besides, "depressed" is a less-intense emotion than "frustrated". I labelled these wikimoods so that the emotions are more intense the further they are from the zero point. -- Denelson8323:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A template you created, Template:Archive2, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you went ahead and turned the page into a redirect. If it isn't going to be used, do you have any objection to me simply deleting the template? Cheers. --MZMcBride17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not. Go right ahead. -- Catchi? 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.
Thanks for uploading Image:Fullmetal Alchemist Ep 51.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Temp page, as in the title, the actual page is at Floyd James Thompson and has been active for some time
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Floyd James Thompson/Temp, 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 220:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use disputed for Image:Star_Trek-First_Contact-Phoenix.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Star_Trek-First_Contact-Phoenix.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.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to the above images. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description pages and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus OmniaTalk02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, but I've removedNed Scott's RFC from the list of open RfCs, because I think it's resolved and it wouldn't make sense to flaunt that dead dispute. Please do restore it if you disagree. --Tony Sidaway20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the "dispute" is over. Time will tell if it has. -- Catchi? 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed people are still editing that page. I do not know what to make of it. :) -- Catchi? 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, User:Melsaran edited it, the first in ten days. That's why I thought it as well to give it some kind of formal closure. I hope that you and Ned will be able to co-exist from now on. I know that both of you will inform me if this proves difficult. --Tony Sidaway21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't know anything about anime, and don't really have any interest in it. There are lots of people who know Japanese and are into anime, though, so keep looking! Madler 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in help expanding a series of Anime related articles? I need help from a Japanese speaking person to add material from Japanese sources. -- Catchi? 17:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It would mostly depend on what articles you're hoping to expand. I'd be happy to help if it's an anime that I know something about, but I, unfortunately, don't have the time right now to read up from scratch about anime I've never heard of. Feel free to post a list of articles on my talk page and I'll let you know. Thanks! -Sarfa23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A concern was raised that the articles in question did not have adequate out of universe material such as information on the production or information on the cultural references such as the reception it received. Information on ratings, awards a particular episode received would also be a helpful addition.
If you could help perfect just one of the articles, I could use it as a metric for future reference. Of course I would more than welcome any additional help as well.
Thats part of the problem. Information is mostly in Japanese as the show it self is of Japan origin. I bet there are Anime critics out there (there are critics for everything) but I do not know how to acquire that information. Just like their western counterparts, I bet there are sites documenting ratings of spesific shows. But I do not know where these sites are.
As for the movie, I am uncertain where to look for them. Have you tried checking out featured movie articles?
I really want to work on the episode articles first since movie article is less problematic.
Yes, but I have no access to such commentaries. :( -- Catchi? 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me to help! I will try to add stuff that is Wikipedia-quality, but my translations, as some of my friends say, are not entirely correct or have slight meaning variations. Having someone double-check my edits would help...GreenRunner000:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is ok. I will check after you :) -- Catchi? 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. Would you consider the use of a tool for the task disruptive? -- Catchi? 10:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving at a fairly face pace and I'm leary of trying not to be disruptive. A bot is considerably faster than me, so it probably shouldn't be used for a task like this. I'm also getting rid of my old name because of real life, not because I don't like prefer the name anymore, so that may or may not be a factor. — Moeε11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bot edit would not register on the watchlist of peoples and would be safely ignored by people aside from those who want to explicitly see it. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything by the way. Bots would be more efficient in dealing with the task. -- Catchi? 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure a bot would be approved for this work, but you're more than willing to try again (as it's my understanding that you tried once). I know you weren't trying to accuse me of anything :) — Moeε13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now some people has the belief is that signature alterations is something completely controversial. Their belief wont change if enough people say the contrary. Bots can only be used for non-controversial tasks and for me sig corrections are jaw-dropingly non-controversial. I was wondering your personal stance. -- Catchi? 13:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's mostly non-controversial, the only issue with it is that it wastes time to do so, but it's my time to waste for the sake of privacy. For bots, approval for a single task like yours, is probably unneeded and would probably get shot down for bot status. You probably shouldn't get more trouble if you start it again, but I'm not making guarentees. — Moeε13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot people had painted a different picture during my second request for bot approval which was shot down immediately. The discussion didn't even lasted half a day. I want a 3rd request with this "consensus" that sig fixes are nothing controversial. I am pretty much unsure on how to gather this consensus. I do not want to start a poll on this. -- Catchi? 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If they feel that strongly for bots to not change them, maybe you could just continue manually. I never really got any guff from it, you really shouldn't get any either. If you feel inclined to remove your old sig, there shouldn't be anything to stop you, but getting a bot approval may just be a waste of time and get unwanted results. Just remove some manually every day in non-masses and ease it in so no "disruption" is possible. — Moeε14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}