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/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), 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. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, is there any particular reason you haven't signed the RfM yet? You've edited the RfM page, but not signed your agreement. Surely your disagreement over the question framing isn't sufficient for you to want to sabotage the mediation? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I'm concerned that you have now edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) several times but have not agreed to mediation. I fear that this may jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. I think that if you have concerns about the RfM, it would be best to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) instead of editing the page any more. I also hope that you will agree to the mediation process. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A question which mixes two of your recent issues, mall articles without secondary sources and Lost episode articles: Why do you find it acceptable that few (if any) Lost episodes have primary sources, let alone secondary sources, while, at the same time, it is so objectionable that malls do not have secondary sources, that you've brought several of them to WP:AFD? — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, Elonka. I hope you had an enjoyable holiday last week.
I wanted to check with you to make sure that I understand your exact concerns regarding TV:NC so that I do not misrepresent you. This is my understanding of your position:
If I am correct, then I think we are much closer to a consensus than people think, because I think there is already a consensus on the first two points. In this case, I intend to make a much bigger stink because I think there are a lot of people who are misunderstanding the issue.
I wanted to check with you, though, because I want to make sure I've got it right. If, for example, you actually disagree with the general guideline, but you are "settling" for the statement about exceptions as a means of compromise, then I want to make sure that your actual concerns are addressed.
So, to sum up, do the three statements above accurately and completely represent your position on the issue? Thanks again. -- Toby Rush ‹ ✆| ✍ › 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say thank you for the copyediting of my spelling errors on various mediation pages; one drawback of being a very rapid typist (about 90wpm) is that my accuracy is shot. Thanks a bunch for checking up on me! Essjay (Talk) 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Let's assume for the moment that The Westfield Group is a notable company - at least it would appear as Starbucks - I would like to get the main TWG article looking more like a WP:CORP FA class article. Do you agree, that in doing this, an important step would be to move the list of locations to List of Westfield shopping centres in ... by nation? I have dropped a proposal on the talk page but no comments there yet. Ga rr ie 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not threaten people with blocks when you have not been authorized to do so. Thank you. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi
I know you're an experienced Wikipedian and do loads of great stuff, including tagging articles without categories, etc. I notice you often add the "wikify" tag too. Often these articles don't need wikifying, especially when they are stubs (recent examples include 49th Military Police Brigade or 7 Shot Screamers In Wonderland to pick two early ones from the list you tagged today.
If you tag them for wikfication they will be added to the wikify backlog, and someone from WikiProject Wikify will have to come & remove the tag again. Even if someone has edited the article to add a category, which appears to be your main suggestion, they often leave the wikify tag. I guess I am requesting that, in order not to waste others' time, you make your tagging a bit more specific, and only add a wikify tag when you feel it's really necessary.
I'd love to hear your views on this. Windymilla 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Elonka,
I'd be happy to take a look at the situation you are referring to and offer some input. You should realize (and probably have realized if you read some of the arbitration discussions), however, that I had some intense disagreements with other editors on particulary the subject of removing other peoples' talk posts. Therefore, I am not a suitable person to ask if you are looking for a neutral "mediator". If you want input (or support, since you apparently have the same dispute with one of those editors), give a link where I can find the discussion. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have WP:RM watchlisted, so I saw your comments there and responded. Just today, I decided to check your contribs to see if you had taken similar action on other pages. As it turned out, you had. I am not in the habit of checking your contribs and I will not make it habit out of courtesy to you. However, I find your actions at WP:RM and WP:POLL to be incredibly unhelpful to the debate at WP:TV-NC, as none of us would be expected to find your posts those pages and be able to provide an opposing point of view. I repeat that I have no intention of stalking your contribs, but this pattern of posting related discussions on unrelated pages is practically an invitation for people to do just that.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to bring up valid arguments on other pages, but I ask that you post a note at WP:TV-NC when it could impact the debate there. It would go a long way toward building good will and trust. – Anþony talk 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I was told off-wiki that your latest angle in the TV dispute boils down to prosecuting people who oppose polls. Before you take that line of thought any further, let me remind you who it was that removed that poll against you. ( Radiant) 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. I trust you have no background in the topic, so will be able offer good neutral edits. Best regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to re-sumbit a medcabal case. Wiki eZach| talk 03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Regards,-- Hús ö nd 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding to categorise. This revealed several Christian Brothers Colleges with 'weird' categorisation i.e repetitive, rundundant part 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) part 10:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice and the useful header on the new Evaporators article contributed by User:PShoor PShoor. I cordially invite you to look at the other student projects, listed on my user page. Many thanks. susato 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me review it quickly to see if a block is needed, if so, I will get one. Wiki eZach| talk 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, -- `/aksha 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Reading through that discussion page, I'd say that informal mediation is probably dead in the water at this point; it may have worked a month ago, but I think the discussion seems to have collapsed past that point by now. Kirill Lokshin 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I apologize for taking so long to respond to you; I have been away from Wikipedia for the past week and am just now catching up with all the recent hubbub.
I am not certain why you took exception to my moving of episode articles at TMNT 1987; you mentioned there that "the issue is pretty clearly in dispute," but I saw no evidence of that dispute at TMNT 1987. In fact, the issue had been brought up by tiZom in August, and no one had offered any opinions one way or the other since then.
I've made mention of this, and more specifically described my good-faith intentions, at the discussion you initiated at AN/I.
I am curious, though, about your remark on the TMNT talk page that it is inappropriate to make changes to the TMNT pages without first consulting the original editors. This seems to me to counter the fundamental nature of Wikipedia: the original editors do not own the TMNT pages, and they agreed to allow their work to be "mercilessly edited" when they submitted the changes, as we all do.
If you feel that the TMNT 1987 pages should maintain their own naming convention, I invite you to make the case over that the TMNT 1987 page so we can determine a consensus. (Had you, or anyone else, made this case in response to tiZom's original request, I would certainly have not made any page moves.) As I've mentioned on AN/I, if a consensus there emerges to have all the pages disambiguated, I will gladly go through and add the suffixes again myself. :) -- Toby Rush ‹ ✆| ✍ › 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's quite satisfying to be able to do relatively technically straightforward stuff that others seem to find useful, and hopefully ultimately helps various maintenance operations once these have a reasonable category on them. I suppose at this rate, you'll indeed be spending a lot of time on uncategorised pages for some time to come! Alai 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In the recent discussions at WT:TV-NAME and related articles, you have contacted editors who have edited articles in a certain way and urged them to participate in the disambiguation discussion and page move votes. You should be aware that selectively contacting editors who share a point of view and asking them to vote may be considered Votestacking or Campaigning per WP:SPAM. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] -- Milo H Minderbinder 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh Elonka, → [14] ←. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I still want to hear what Elonka has to say about this → [17] - Ned Scott 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Since the userspace version was userfied from articlespace, and a nearly-identical article was speedied (repeatedly), I went ahead and removed the userspace copy as well. If someone wants to make an article about them, it's better that it not be from that foundation. -- nae' blis 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Having noticed you following the request for arbitration [ [18]], I wanted to wish you good luck with that as I truly think we should have standardized naming.
I also wanted to make a friendly comment about your edit summary here [19] which might be truthfully a smoothing out job but such a statement is 1- not encyclopedic and 2- not creating a positive atmosphere to work in. A simple summary (syntax or style in this case) might avoid some unwanted reactions. Lost Kiwi (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you put the uncategorized tag on Bruce Lockhart and now I have a question! I was going to beef it up a bit in order to categorize it. So, I googled Mr. Lockhart and lo and behold the first entry in google to pop up was a more complete page for the same person on Wiki. It is under R. H. Bruce Lockhart. What is the best way to deal with this? Redirect? Request a delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.83.223 ( talk) 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.83.223 ( talk • contribs) 03:02, December 14, 2006
I’m bothered by the wording of the category in which you've placed me above: They're not (as) militant about it, but, through either unawareness of the unethical tactics by the above group, or quiet acceptance of it, they seem to be allied with the gang. I don’t care for the implication that my opinion is based either on ignorance or on acceptance of unethical tactics. Have you used this wording elsewhere? Putting this on your talk page is one thing, but if you've put it on any page related to the arbitration, I’d like the opportunity to refute it. Thanks. -- Brian Olsen 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the wording when you posted this on the Evidence page. I don't completely agree with your description of the first group, but I appreciate you removing the implications I mentioned from your reference to me. -- Brian Olsen 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's rather ironic that in rebuking me for my comment about "pulling an Elonka", you engage in the very behavior I was alluding to in that remark — the tendency to distribute civility and "NPA" warnings at the slightest provocation. It is not a personal attack to refer to an individual's consistently demonstrated pattern of behavior, especially one which, as Leflyman points out, you yourself admit to on this very page. Similarly, describing remarks like this (to take but one example) as "snide asides" is not a personal attack, but a description of a pattern of behavior. WP:NPA says "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks." I don't believe that I have made any comments about your personal character, and I resent your repeated suggestion that I have. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence but you apparently didn't see it. – Anþony talk 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Twice now you have claimed with no validity that my AfD listing of two articles you authored about your family members were "revenge AfDs":
I had intended to let the issue alone, but as this appears to be part of a pattern of mischaracterising the actions and intentions of other editors (as pointed out in the above sections), I ask that you apologise for these personal attacks, strike them through and desist in further such characterisations. Thank you, -- Leflyman Talk 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Under your evidence, you say that "Netoholic disagrees" with Josiah Rowe in this comment. It is a mischaracterization to say I disagreed about the "broad consensus". Certainly, there was consensus to document the practice of using redirects. I only sought to voice that it not be a strict requirement. Please remove or revise from the evidence page. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what would be the point of fragmenting the discussion. -- Milo H Minderbinder 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Elonka. Since the failure of the attempted mediation is a bit of a side-issue to the matters being considered by ArbCom, I've placed an informal summary of why and how the mediation failed here. In short, there were a number of elements, but the first domino to fall was the edit war about Radiant!, and if that hadn't happened I think the chances of the arbitration succeeding would have been much higher.
If you want to discuss the matter, we can of course do so, but I think this sort of archaeology isn't the best use of our time. Honestly, I think we should all try to put the naming issue aside while we're waiting for the arbitrators to get around to us (which may not happen until after the new appointees are installed). Continuing to nitpick about who did what when isn't really going to help anyone's case at this point — I think the important evidence is on the evidence page, and the ArbCom will decide what it will decide (if they can wade through all the evidence and proposals on the Workshop page).
As for the standard of my behavior, I'll take your comments under advisement, and will respect the judgment of my peers and the ArbCom. Personally, I don't think that my edits to the evidence or workshop pages have been particularly emotional or partisan. Of course, I'm human, so I'm capable of error and bias — but I think that neither you, I, nor any other participant in this dispute is a particularly good judge of my neutrality, or that of other participants. We're all too close to the matter to see it clearly — which is why it's good that the case will be examined by neutral arbitrators, who don't have a dog in the fight. The challenge for us is to wait patiently and try not to escalate the dispute while we're waiting. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year. I want to thank you for your continued support to the project, and more specifically for the overall observation of the articles, and also for helping me with my articles. Best regards, --Lperez2029 18:09, 22 December 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/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), 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. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, is there any particular reason you haven't signed the RfM yet? You've edited the RfM page, but not signed your agreement. Surely your disagreement over the question framing isn't sufficient for you to want to sabotage the mediation? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I'm concerned that you have now edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) several times but have not agreed to mediation. I fear that this may jeopardize the case's chances of being accepted. I think that if you have concerns about the RfM, it would be best to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) instead of editing the page any more. I also hope that you will agree to the mediation process. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A question which mixes two of your recent issues, mall articles without secondary sources and Lost episode articles: Why do you find it acceptable that few (if any) Lost episodes have primary sources, let alone secondary sources, while, at the same time, it is so objectionable that malls do not have secondary sources, that you've brought several of them to WP:AFD? — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, Elonka. I hope you had an enjoyable holiday last week.
I wanted to check with you to make sure that I understand your exact concerns regarding TV:NC so that I do not misrepresent you. This is my understanding of your position:
If I am correct, then I think we are much closer to a consensus than people think, because I think there is already a consensus on the first two points. In this case, I intend to make a much bigger stink because I think there are a lot of people who are misunderstanding the issue.
I wanted to check with you, though, because I want to make sure I've got it right. If, for example, you actually disagree with the general guideline, but you are "settling" for the statement about exceptions as a means of compromise, then I want to make sure that your actual concerns are addressed.
So, to sum up, do the three statements above accurately and completely represent your position on the issue? Thanks again. -- Toby Rush ‹ ✆| ✍ › 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say thank you for the copyediting of my spelling errors on various mediation pages; one drawback of being a very rapid typist (about 90wpm) is that my accuracy is shot. Thanks a bunch for checking up on me! Essjay (Talk) 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Let's assume for the moment that The Westfield Group is a notable company - at least it would appear as Starbucks - I would like to get the main TWG article looking more like a WP:CORP FA class article. Do you agree, that in doing this, an important step would be to move the list of locations to List of Westfield shopping centres in ... by nation? I have dropped a proposal on the talk page but no comments there yet. Ga rr ie 04:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not threaten people with blocks when you have not been authorized to do so. Thank you. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi
I know you're an experienced Wikipedian and do loads of great stuff, including tagging articles without categories, etc. I notice you often add the "wikify" tag too. Often these articles don't need wikifying, especially when they are stubs (recent examples include 49th Military Police Brigade or 7 Shot Screamers In Wonderland to pick two early ones from the list you tagged today.
If you tag them for wikfication they will be added to the wikify backlog, and someone from WikiProject Wikify will have to come & remove the tag again. Even if someone has edited the article to add a category, which appears to be your main suggestion, they often leave the wikify tag. I guess I am requesting that, in order not to waste others' time, you make your tagging a bit more specific, and only add a wikify tag when you feel it's really necessary.
I'd love to hear your views on this. Windymilla 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Elonka,
I'd be happy to take a look at the situation you are referring to and offer some input. You should realize (and probably have realized if you read some of the arbitration discussions), however, that I had some intense disagreements with other editors on particulary the subject of removing other peoples' talk posts. Therefore, I am not a suitable person to ask if you are looking for a neutral "mediator". If you want input (or support, since you apparently have the same dispute with one of those editors), give a link where I can find the discussion. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have WP:RM watchlisted, so I saw your comments there and responded. Just today, I decided to check your contribs to see if you had taken similar action on other pages. As it turned out, you had. I am not in the habit of checking your contribs and I will not make it habit out of courtesy to you. However, I find your actions at WP:RM and WP:POLL to be incredibly unhelpful to the debate at WP:TV-NC, as none of us would be expected to find your posts those pages and be able to provide an opposing point of view. I repeat that I have no intention of stalking your contribs, but this pattern of posting related discussions on unrelated pages is practically an invitation for people to do just that.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to bring up valid arguments on other pages, but I ask that you post a note at WP:TV-NC when it could impact the debate there. It would go a long way toward building good will and trust. – Anþony talk 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I was told off-wiki that your latest angle in the TV dispute boils down to prosecuting people who oppose polls. Before you take that line of thought any further, let me remind you who it was that removed that poll against you. ( Radiant) 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Can you do me and wikipedia a big favour and give Clement of Dunblane a quick copyedit (sentences structures, unclear info, etc). I'm personally happy with it, but as it's up for FA, it has to satisfiy a broad range of editorally tastes. I trust you have no background in the topic, so will be able offer good neutral edits. Best regards, Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to re-sumbit a medcabal case. Wiki eZach| talk 03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Regards,-- Hús ö nd 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding to categorise. This revealed several Christian Brothers Colleges with 'weird' categorisation i.e repetitive, rundundant part 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) part 10:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice and the useful header on the new Evaporators article contributed by User:PShoor PShoor. I cordially invite you to look at the other student projects, listed on my user page. Many thanks. susato 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me review it quickly to see if a block is needed, if so, I will get one. Wiki eZach| talk 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, -- `/aksha 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Reading through that discussion page, I'd say that informal mediation is probably dead in the water at this point; it may have worked a month ago, but I think the discussion seems to have collapsed past that point by now. Kirill Lokshin 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I apologize for taking so long to respond to you; I have been away from Wikipedia for the past week and am just now catching up with all the recent hubbub.
I am not certain why you took exception to my moving of episode articles at TMNT 1987; you mentioned there that "the issue is pretty clearly in dispute," but I saw no evidence of that dispute at TMNT 1987. In fact, the issue had been brought up by tiZom in August, and no one had offered any opinions one way or the other since then.
I've made mention of this, and more specifically described my good-faith intentions, at the discussion you initiated at AN/I.
I am curious, though, about your remark on the TMNT talk page that it is inappropriate to make changes to the TMNT pages without first consulting the original editors. This seems to me to counter the fundamental nature of Wikipedia: the original editors do not own the TMNT pages, and they agreed to allow their work to be "mercilessly edited" when they submitted the changes, as we all do.
If you feel that the TMNT 1987 pages should maintain their own naming convention, I invite you to make the case over that the TMNT 1987 page so we can determine a consensus. (Had you, or anyone else, made this case in response to tiZom's original request, I would certainly have not made any page moves.) As I've mentioned on AN/I, if a consensus there emerges to have all the pages disambiguated, I will gladly go through and add the suffixes again myself. :) -- Toby Rush ‹ ✆| ✍ › 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's quite satisfying to be able to do relatively technically straightforward stuff that others seem to find useful, and hopefully ultimately helps various maintenance operations once these have a reasonable category on them. I suppose at this rate, you'll indeed be spending a lot of time on uncategorised pages for some time to come! Alai 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In the recent discussions at WT:TV-NAME and related articles, you have contacted editors who have edited articles in a certain way and urged them to participate in the disambiguation discussion and page move votes. You should be aware that selectively contacting editors who share a point of view and asking them to vote may be considered Votestacking or Campaigning per WP:SPAM. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] -- Milo H Minderbinder 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh Elonka, → [14] ←. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I still want to hear what Elonka has to say about this → [17] - Ned Scott 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Since the userspace version was userfied from articlespace, and a nearly-identical article was speedied (repeatedly), I went ahead and removed the userspace copy as well. If someone wants to make an article about them, it's better that it not be from that foundation. -- nae' blis 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Having noticed you following the request for arbitration [ [18]], I wanted to wish you good luck with that as I truly think we should have standardized naming.
I also wanted to make a friendly comment about your edit summary here [19] which might be truthfully a smoothing out job but such a statement is 1- not encyclopedic and 2- not creating a positive atmosphere to work in. A simple summary (syntax or style in this case) might avoid some unwanted reactions. Lost Kiwi (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you put the uncategorized tag on Bruce Lockhart and now I have a question! I was going to beef it up a bit in order to categorize it. So, I googled Mr. Lockhart and lo and behold the first entry in google to pop up was a more complete page for the same person on Wiki. It is under R. H. Bruce Lockhart. What is the best way to deal with this? Redirect? Request a delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.83.223 ( talk) 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.83.223 ( talk • contribs) 03:02, December 14, 2006
I’m bothered by the wording of the category in which you've placed me above: They're not (as) militant about it, but, through either unawareness of the unethical tactics by the above group, or quiet acceptance of it, they seem to be allied with the gang. I don’t care for the implication that my opinion is based either on ignorance or on acceptance of unethical tactics. Have you used this wording elsewhere? Putting this on your talk page is one thing, but if you've put it on any page related to the arbitration, I’d like the opportunity to refute it. Thanks. -- Brian Olsen 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the wording when you posted this on the Evidence page. I don't completely agree with your description of the first group, but I appreciate you removing the implications I mentioned from your reference to me. -- Brian Olsen 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's rather ironic that in rebuking me for my comment about "pulling an Elonka", you engage in the very behavior I was alluding to in that remark — the tendency to distribute civility and "NPA" warnings at the slightest provocation. It is not a personal attack to refer to an individual's consistently demonstrated pattern of behavior, especially one which, as Leflyman points out, you yourself admit to on this very page. Similarly, describing remarks like this (to take but one example) as "snide asides" is not a personal attack, but a description of a pattern of behavior. WP:NPA says "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks." I don't believe that I have made any comments about your personal character, and I resent your repeated suggestion that I have. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence but you apparently didn't see it. – Anþony talk 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Twice now you have claimed with no validity that my AfD listing of two articles you authored about your family members were "revenge AfDs":
I had intended to let the issue alone, but as this appears to be part of a pattern of mischaracterising the actions and intentions of other editors (as pointed out in the above sections), I ask that you apologise for these personal attacks, strike them through and desist in further such characterisations. Thank you, -- Leflyman Talk 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Under your evidence, you say that "Netoholic disagrees" with Josiah Rowe in this comment. It is a mischaracterization to say I disagreed about the "broad consensus". Certainly, there was consensus to document the practice of using redirects. I only sought to voice that it not be a strict requirement. Please remove or revise from the evidence page. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what would be the point of fragmenting the discussion. -- Milo H Minderbinder 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Elonka. Since the failure of the attempted mediation is a bit of a side-issue to the matters being considered by ArbCom, I've placed an informal summary of why and how the mediation failed here. In short, there were a number of elements, but the first domino to fall was the edit war about Radiant!, and if that hadn't happened I think the chances of the arbitration succeeding would have been much higher.
If you want to discuss the matter, we can of course do so, but I think this sort of archaeology isn't the best use of our time. Honestly, I think we should all try to put the naming issue aside while we're waiting for the arbitrators to get around to us (which may not happen until after the new appointees are installed). Continuing to nitpick about who did what when isn't really going to help anyone's case at this point — I think the important evidence is on the evidence page, and the ArbCom will decide what it will decide (if they can wade through all the evidence and proposals on the Workshop page).
As for the standard of my behavior, I'll take your comments under advisement, and will respect the judgment of my peers and the ArbCom. Personally, I don't think that my edits to the evidence or workshop pages have been particularly emotional or partisan. Of course, I'm human, so I'm capable of error and bias — but I think that neither you, I, nor any other participant in this dispute is a particularly good judge of my neutrality, or that of other participants. We're all too close to the matter to see it clearly — which is why it's good that the case will be examined by neutral arbitrators, who don't have a dog in the fight. The challenge for us is to wait patiently and try not to escalate the dispute while we're waiting. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year. I want to thank you for your continued support to the project, and more specifically for the overall observation of the articles, and also for helping me with my articles. Best regards, --Lperez2029 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)