User talk:Yukichigai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A warm welcome from Bottesiηi

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

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

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

[edit] Deus Ex Mediation

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

[edit] I dunno whats going on

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

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

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

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

- 66.66.190.55 aka Cheech151337

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

[edit] Armpit of America

		The Oddball Barnstar
		I hearby award you the Oddball barnstar for creating this redirect for the particular unflattering term, Armpit of America. Bastique▼^parler _voir 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Tribes redirect

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

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

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

[edit] 3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Mediation

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

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[2] made on October 19, 2006 to Deus Ex mods

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Vandal notice

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

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

[edit] Your writing on "Content Nazism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That came out wrong.

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

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

[edit] License tagging for Image:MetalocalypseJean-Pierre before and after.jpg

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

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

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

[edit] Regarding mods argument

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Your revised essay

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

[edit] Prod warning at Pay Day (Pokémon)

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

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

[edit] Your essay, again

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

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

[edit] Sarcasm

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

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

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

[edit] Jiang

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

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

[edit] WP:AFD

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your understanding :)

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-01-26 06:19Z

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

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

[edit] Day Break Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Torchwood and the "Dr"

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

[edit] Note

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

[edit] Please read the rules

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

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

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

or for UBX subpages

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

or for Wikipedia official userboxes:

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/u/k/User_talk%7EYukichigai_f252.html"