User talk:Ezhiki

Reference:

Archived talk: 2004 2005

Contents

1 Thanks Ezhiki

2 1976 in television pages

3 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces)

4 Come Dancing

5 Thank you for your support

6 Gargantuan task!

7 For Ezhiki

8 I am not finished, yet

9 CE

10 Template talk:Subnational entity

11 RfA

Thanks Ezhiki

Hi Ezhiki, Thanks for your support on my Adminship request. Seabhcán 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Don't feel disappointed if your adminship request fails, though—people are usually very suspicious of self-nominators. If that happens, I'll be more than glad to re-nominate you in a while, but I sincerely hope that you'll go through just fine—like I said, I do not see any reasons why you shouldn't be an admin.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

1976 in television pages

They were already in the main namespace, my move made no change to how "live" they were. I came across them because they were listed as live page on Special:Uncategorizedpages. The articles were violating the rule against subpages, which is why I moved them. If they are test pages they should have had "temp" in the title, or better yet been located in your user space. - SimonP 05:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I note that you moved the pages back, I have described why these titles are inappropriate at Talk:1976 in television/Temp. What really bothers me, however, is that you deleted the redirects created by the page move. Such redirects are not speedy deletion criteria and it is a misuse of admin powers to delete pages out of process, even redirects. In future please list such pages on Redirects for deletion. - SimonP 13:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Simon, I generally hate to lecture people, but I have to point out to you that you really need to start paying a bit more attention. The articles were NOT moved back to their subpage locations; they were moved to new titles as per Talk:1976 in television/Temp, which, as it very much seems, you also did not read.

As for the redirects, they were deleted because none of the other "Years in television" articles follow the 1976 format (mainly because this format is in its test phase). When the format/layout/structure are finalized, I will be creating appropriate redirects for all years, not just 1976, unless the consunsus is not to. For now, it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to have incongruous and useless (i.e., unused) redirects littering the main space, especially when the articles they point to are a work in progress and can be gone altogether.

In future, please make sure that you read all the suggested materials related to the case before coming up with abuse allegations (people tend to take offense, you know). I would also strongly suggest that you move the articles back as the moves you performed are in violation of the discussion on the talk page (at least two users prefer the "1976 in television (Canada)" format (which, I emphasize again, is not utilizing subpages any more) over the "1976 in Canadian television"). Otherwise it would be me who is going to be bothered with your attitude and inattention to details.

I am sorry if this all sounds a bit harsh, but I tend to get irritated when people are not paying attention and refuse to admit it afterwards. If your attitude continues, I will be forced to move the test articles to my userspace in order to be able to work on them in peace and have you calmed down. If "Years in television" articles interest you, I would suggest that you adopt a more constructive attitude and start making project-related suggestions on the Talk:1976 in television/Temp page.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Semantically a slash and a bracket do exactly the same thing. A subpage is not only one containing a slash in the title, a subpage is any page that creates a rigid hierarchy of articles. Your brackets cause exactly the same problem I have with the slashes. As I said putting television in the main title while relegating country to a note ignores that the country/television formation is just as valid. 1976 in Canada (television) is just as valid a heading for this content as 1976 in television (Canada). Using your title makes it seem as though the page could only ever be considered a subdivision of 1976 in television ignoring that it will also be a subdivision of 1976 in Canada.

Also please review WP:CSD. That you consider redirects to be "incongruous and useless" is not a speedy deletion criteria. RfD is not a complicated process and it is really unacceptable for someone who has been an admin for close to a year to be deleting pages without following procedure. - SimonP 15:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you wish to contest this on the basis of technicalities, so be it.

Semantically, the slash and a parenthesis are the same thing. However, this particular semantics issue is not covered by any of the WP policies or guidelines. While using parentheses is indeed typical of disambiguation pages, there is no official policy or guideline prohibiting using them for other purposes (to me, this is where "use common sense" comes into play). Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Subpages guideline defines subpages strictly as "pages separated with a "/" (a forward slash)" (note the parentheses are not mentioned at all). Then, this same guideline also states that "the only accepted use for subpages in the encyclopedia namespace is for making drafts of major article revisions", which puts your original move in direct violation of this particular guideline, as the the articles you had moved were meant as temporary draft versions (to your benefit, I will gladly accept that it was my mistake of not prominently labeling them as such).

Both "1976 in Canada (television)" and "1976 in television (Canada)" can indeed be used. I, however, do not see anything wrong with using one of them as a title, and the other one as a redirect. In the end, the version which is to the liking of more people will be used. As a matter of fact, the only reason why I moved "1976 in Canadian television" back to "1976 in television (Canada)" was because both Cburnett and myself liked this format better (no one else voiced an opinion), leaving you in the minority. Plus, you did not move all of the country pages out of the subpages space, so, to achieve consistency, I had to make moves one way or another.

Your Canada/television vs. Television/Canada suggestion, by the way, would have looked much better on the project's talk page, especially when presented positively. I strongly believe that editors working on this project are reasonable folks open to any constructive suggestions. If you think this "ambiguity" is a deficiency (I don't, because it can easily be resolved with a redirect), start a new section on project's deficiencies (hopefully with proposed solutions). Do not treat the article structure as set in stone just yet—the project is only days old, and I am sure there are still many issues neither you nor us have yet thought of.

As far as the deletion of redirects goes, this action of mine falls under #7 in the General section of WP:CSD. Furthermore, as a creator of these temporary pages, I have a right to declare that the pages were created in the main space in error and move them to my userspace. The remaining redirects will then be deleted as per #2 in the "Redirects" section. Previously deleted redirects will fall under the same criteria, although the rule will be applied retroactively (which, again, is not in violation of any policies).

I hope this addresses your concerns. I now very much regret that I've just wasted a whole morning contesting a very technical issue instead of actually working on "Years in television" project as I planned. While your desire to enforce policies is honorable, you still need time to get to know them better, and, above all, you need to assume good faith. If you took a little time to check my contributions and userpage, you'd see that "years in television" is one of the projects I've been working on for a long time, and, even if I made a mistake, it would not have been intentional. Simply pointing out to me what you think a mistake was (instead of hastily moving stuff around) would save us both a lot of time and nerves. Stubborness is not usually a good trait, neither in real life nor in Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia tries to work by the spirit of the law not the letter. Perhaps the most important reason that Larry banned subpages is because of the enforced hierarchy concerns. See Wikipedia talk:Subpages pros and cons and Wikipedia talk:Do not use subpages. Majority opinion is not the way to decide these things. Your effort so far has essentially been a subproject of the years in television series and has only been advertised to those interested in that area. You have not noted that your efforts are just as applicable to the years in Canada, years in Ireland, years in South Africa, etc. projects. It is a pure coincidence that I, who have been involved in several of these projects, stumbled upon your pages.

Also CSD #7 does not apply here. The important word is mistake. You did not "create the redirect by mistake" you felt that someone else did. - SimonP 16:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was not me who started to stick to the letter of the policies instead of to their spirit. So far, your accusations have been based on very technical interpretations of the rules. All I did was to respond in a similar fashion.

Anyway, technicalities or not, you may or may not be right about CSD #7 (it all really depends on interpretation of "authorship" under GFDL provisions, especially when applied to redirects created due to a (unilateral) page move—I am not a lawyer, and I have absolutely no desire to dig into this even further than I already did). If you suggest sticking to the spirit of the policies, however, then, using common sense, leftovers of temporary/draft pages moves are perfect candidates for CSD.

In any case, I still reserve the right to move the project to my userspace and then apply CSD Redirects #2, rendering this point moot.

Speaking of me not having "noted that [my] efforts are just as applicable to the years in Canada, years in Ireland... etc. projects", how about (again!) going back to Talk:1976 in television/Temp#Why change?, and looking at the following sentence in the middle of the second paragraph: "Country-specific information is proposed to be moved to separate articles"? Whether you missed this line or not, it does not really matter; I am simply flabbergasted that you did not understand that I was using Canada just as an example, and that by default I meant the rest of the countries. What in the world did I do to earn such a distrust from you that you are willing to accuse me based on the most minor (and, as I deem them, obvious) omissions in my reasoning?

Finally, as far as your statements that "my effort so far has... been a subproject... advertised to those interested in that area" and that it was "a pure coincidence that you... stumbled upon [these] pages" go, I would like one more time to bring to your attention the fact that the project is less than a week old. I am sure there are some projects out there that started without you or me knowing about them. If one is to assume good faith, s/he would understand that the reason for not advertising the project was not to conceal it from public scrutiny, but rather to shape it, through the joint efforts of the interested editors, to a form which can then be presented to a broader audience without being accused of distraction of said audience's attention to review an unreadable, unstructured, and unformatted mess (which this project at this point of time is).

To summarize, I would suggest that you adopt the following course of action: move the pages back where they were this morning (an apology from you would have been nice, but I am not going to insist on it) and conduct the straw poll on the project talk page regarding the naming issue (let me remind you that the only reasons why the WP has policies is because the majority decided to have them). I, in turn, promise to apologize for any offenses I might have inadvertently given you in any of my communications above. This will hopefully result in us cooperatively working on the project, with respect to each other's opinions. So far, I am looking at 15 Kb of discussion on my talk page, and do not see how it can even remotely aid Wikipedia to become a better encyclopedia. What I do know, is that instead of working on having a more or less shaped project by noon today, I have wasted my time on a pretty much pointless discussion over the interpretation of the rules (most of which do not even apply). Sue me if that's not the truth.

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Policies are not brought about by a majority, they are brought about by a consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In general decisions are made by consensus rather than a strict majority rule. Polls are generally only resorted to when other types of decision making have failed. See also m:Polls are evil. Wikipedia:Quickpolls have, in particular, been rejected for sometime. There has yet to be any real discussion of this issue much less an obvious failure of discussion. The first step is to try and convince each other and then perhaps list the page on requests for comment.

I'm not sure what you read my assertion that did not note that your efforts are just as applicable to the years in Canada, years in Ireland etc. What I meant by it was that you left messages at the pages of a number of users who participated in making the years in television pages, but left no messages for those who worked on the years in country pages. You are of course under no obligation to do such work, but it is a stretch to assume that any discussion resulting would only reflect one facet of the community. The project is only a week old and it is far to early to expect any kind of consensus, especially with only three people having contributed. There is no need to enforce any "majority opinion," because it is far to early for one to exist. I thus don't see any reason to move the pages back. They are causing no harm where they are now and if it is decided that the "year in country's television" format is better we would just have to move them back. - SimonP 17:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, of course, that I was under no obligation to notify people working on country pages. The real reasons, however, were not that I was too lazy to do so, but, first, because the project is more television- than country-oriented (so I wanted people interested mainly in television to take a first look), and, second, since I was not working on country pages, I would not know who was involved the most and who would take the greatest interest. If such information is available to you, by all means go ahead and let them know this project exists. The more people, the merrier.

As for consensus vs. majority, most of the times it is the same thing, except where significant compromises are made by both sides (yes, I would guess most of the existing policies were a result of compromises). I am very well aware of the quick polls controversies, but in this particular situation, the main article can really be under only one name (whatever that name is), so a quick poll would be a good idea, especially considering that it is not binding, but is only used as first approximation of how the things are going to look like in the end (it is very hard working on a project if its pages are moved back and forth). Furthermore, quoting you ("polls are generally only resorted to when other types of decision making have failed"), I would say that the current situation can be perfectly described as such. I understand that you moved the articles because you believed that they violate WP naming policy. I already told you why they do not, but I do not see you providing any other reasons why they should not be moved back to where Cburnett and me prefer to see them (at least for now). I like your RfC idea, but I do not think now is the best time to request one. I would rather have people comment on the whole idea/structure instead of a mundane issue of sub-articles names.

Looking back at your actions, the very least you could do was to notify the project participants that the move was going to be made (and why). The way you did it was (or, rather, was perceived as) very arrogant and impolite, and you did not do much to fix that when it was pointed out to you. I realize that you were probably just being bold, but this particular guideline is not very applicable when dealing with an active project that's still in its early testing stage (just because only three people commented on it is no excuse).

I will stop insisting that you move the articles back (since it is all temporary and to be decided upon, it really does not matter where they are now), but I would still suggest that you change the in-article references to bypass the redirects that appeared because of your moves. These redirects are currently nothing more than just yet another factor in an already complicated articles structure (and an unnecessary one at that); bypassing them would help the participants more easily focus on what's important. When all this is done, I hope the project will be back on track again.

If you wish (and if you are positively against any polls in any form), request an RfC on the names, but do it yourself as I am not going to distract the community's attention on such a minor issue, at least not at this time when the project still smells of raw meat.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces)

Maybe you can have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll take a better look at it tomorrow.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your comment. With some people I argue about upper/lower case. These people sometimes have no problem with translating into english. I pointed one to Ukraine and he was astonished that they did not use an english term. With the next I discuss Province of X vs. X Province. He has absolutly no problem with upper/lower case. But I think, upper/lower case is almost solved. ;-) But as always, I admit I do not know whether it is the best idea. I tried this mostly because of conformance and the benefits I see there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Idw Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No objections. It was replaced with a larger version.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Come Dancing

I'm afraid I've forgotten now what my 1995 date source was... However, checking the page for the show on the official BBC website here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/comedancing/), they too give the 1998 date, so it might perhaps be best to go with that. I'm pretty sure though as it said by BillyH on the talk page that regular series stopped in 1995 and subsequent editions to 1998 were specials.Angmering 10:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. BillyH responded faster than I ever expected to get a response, and for now it should be sufficient. Still, thanks for looking into this for me.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thanks for supporting my nomination for adminship. Kelly Martin 16:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I believe you will be a great admin.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Gargantuan task!

But since you're so good at working on the television articles, you might want to know I wrote Romper Room, which means it should be on the "television shows" list from 1953 to 1994. Mike H 17:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, more work! :) Well, for now, I will add it to just 1953 and 1994. I will be taking care of the years in between when I get to them. I did not get a chance to keep up with all the changes while I was gone and later when I returned, so there is quite a backlog to work through. I am going to start working on all years sequentially to convert them to the format proposed on 1976 in television/Temp anyway (now that's a Pantagruelian task! :)), and hopefully will take care of the said backlog at the same time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:22, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

For Ezhiki

Ладно, сдаюсь. Разблокируйте пожалуйста. А то Yahoo нас понизит :( Больше ссылок добавлять не буду. Виктор.

Здравствуйте, Виктор. Если откровенно, то большого желания вам помогать после всего того, что вы тут делали, у меня нет. Проблема, однако, не только в этом. Запись вашего сайта в глобальный спам-фильтр была сделана не мною (хотя и по моей просьбе); поскольку людей, имеющих к нему доступ, не так уж и много. Теоретически, я мог бы попросить ваш сайт из списка убрать (несмотря на то, что он только что был добавлен), но я не смогу вразумительно объяснить, почему это должно быть сделано, поскольку это будет логически противоречить моему предыдущему запросу.

В качестве утешения могу сказать только то, что на позиционирование вашего сайта в Yahoo, Google et al. включение его в глобальный спам-фильтр Википедии влиять не должно. В качестве предупреждения, бо вы пожелаете поменять хостинг и начать всё заново—всё повторится по тому же сценарию (revert, edit block, several reverts, global spam filter), но только в значительно ускоренном темпе.

Я лично ничего не имею против вашей компании как таковой (в конце концов, вы продаёте не виагру и не разнообразные удлиннители, а вполне полезный сервис), но ваши методы продвижения и раскрутки зачастую оставляют желать лучшего.

С уважением,

—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not finished, yet

You removed the show from the '74-'78 TV schedule. But, I am more confused right now, I also cannot find such a show on any TV network, who knows what time it would be on? Even I have been told and warned already before to not watch the show on television, as I already told you, many times, Ezhiki.

See also User:SimonP's messages above the title, "1976 in television pages".

Unhappy person - 4.160.xxx.xxx June 19 Sun

No answers? Come on, this is mostly true, what other television show could compare to the "bogus" disco cartoons. Were parents aware of "Disco Dog featuring Charlie?". Or else the situation I think turns out stupid.

Unhappy person (again)

My answer is what it has always been—there was never any show about "Charlie the Disco dog". When you are able to come up with some kind of proof showing otherwise, I will be glad to discuss this again. The way things are now, I consider the discussion closed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I will too quit from the discussion, You can share your messages to User:Jeff Schiller and User:BrianSmithson I am sure I corrected their names.

CE

That seems to be about what date notation to use when you need to use date notation. I'm removing it where there is no need for any notation, eg no-one calls this year 2005 CE, they call this year 2005. I'll move on to removing extraneous AD's next, though that might have to wait till tomorrow.

I do not see a problem with you removing the CE notation where it is truly unnecessary (such as in 2005 CE). Some of your removals, however, are not that clear-cut, e.g., 78 CE is actually useful.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

His claim is hard to believe; immediately after he said he was going to remove "extraneous AD's next", he went and put one in:[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asia_Province&diff=prev&oldid=15474399) As well, he's been removing BCE as well, and in other pages with AD, he removes only BCE not AD e.g.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_mathematicians&diff=15475341&oldid=15460032) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Subnational entity

RfyourC: I prefer old style, see Template talk:Subnational entity best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: (Could you translate vnutrigorodskoy in the terms table at Subdivisions of Russia?)

Done.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

But what is "Vnutri"? Additional the relation okrug=district, rayon=region does not work anymore. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vtutrigorodskoy literally means "inter-city", i.e., a district under the jurisdiction of the city. This is just Russian bureaucracy-speak. When it is translated as just "city district", no meaning is lost. Even in Russian, these districts are often referred to as just "gorodskiye rayony", that is, "city districts".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

funny :-) thanks. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA! Grue 07:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, and congratulations!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Ezhiki"