User talk:Kimelea/Archives/March 2012

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cookie!

Without nosey people nothing would ever get done on Wikipedia! Thank you for making a difficult situation seem so simple! Jenova20 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

I was going to say, no, I'm afraid I'm a little busy - which I am. But my goodness I'm not going to do that to an Exeter graduate! You have charmed me, speaking directly to my roots ;) I'll get you set up in the morning. I might not be the fastest I've ever been, but you're always welcome to drop questions on my talk page and I've got two adoptees who are nearing the end of their courses, so things should speed up soon enough. Welcome aboard! Worm^TT · (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mwahaha! Ze plan is proceeding nicely. Do I assume we spent our student years in the same place, then? If so I wonder how long before we start comparing favourite pubs...

I'm very excited to be your adoptee, and want to thank you. :) I really don't mind the speed we go - happy to fit in the gaps in your time. There's no train to catch as far as I'm concerned, though if I get in a pickle it's great to know you're there. ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You did make a slight slip up complaining about Doom Bar... I almost exploded... but I'll let you off. I've created you an adoption page here, which you're welcome to use as you like. The talk page may be helpful if yo want to vent off some steam! Any general questions, ask whereever you like, if you ask on my user talk page, you're likely to get a helpful response from one of my talk page stalkers (just as you did when you first got there!)

Finally, favourite pub while I was at uni was easily the Old Fire House, but I lived in Exeter for a good few years afterwards and became very attached to Double Locks and George's Meeting House. As you can see, I've got very old tastes! Worm^TT · (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Vitani infobox

As for the infobox, I just removed it because the other characters in Simba's Pride didn't have one, but you can placed them back on the article. I'm sorry about that! About the Facebook comment, it was an actual comment from the director of Simba's Pride, Darrell Rooney. But, in that comment, he claims Kovu was described as an orphan during production, which contradicts what the actual film states where Zira is his mother, but his father is left obscured. So, he can't be a full orphan if he still has a mother. So, it was best to remove the comment altogether to avoid confusion. Christianster94 (talk) 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Griffon vulture

Hi, I have Griffon vulture on my watchlist and noticed you reverted an edit made by an IP this afternoon. I had checked the edit earlier and it looked to me like a good-faith attempt to source an unreferenced passage. On closer inspection I see that it was incorrectly formatted but in my opinion an improvement, since the original didn't cite anything. I thought I'd check with you before I add it back in and clean up the formatting, to make sure you didn't have another reason for reverting. Thanks! ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

These numbers are being slowly modified and has been recognized as a form of surreptitious vandalism - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_50#Problem_edits here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_59#Bird_sizes here etc. for recent discussions. These are best reverted as discussed in the past on sight as they are all deliberate mis-citations. Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, a previous incarnation added plausible but unsourced items to the prey list of dozens of birds. It's a subtle but persistent form of vandalism. The editor concerned never responds to comments on his talk page, and even when blocked (several times now) just continues from another IP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving comments

I'm a newcomer and not yet familiar with all the intricacies of Wikiquette, but I was surprised to see you moving someone else's comment from a !voting section into Discussion on the Muhammad debate. I was under the impression that we are meant to build consensus by discussing something and NOT voting on it. It seems to me that moving someone's comments from their proper context stifles debate and causes confusion. Please could you explain? Thank you. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The sections are clearly labelled and there is an area designated to discuss the issues for that question. The section I moved the comment from is designated solely for those opposing the measure to state that they oppose and state why, just as there is one for those who support. Actual debate/discussion belongs in the area designated for discussion. Further, nothing is being stifled. That user is very active in the discussion section and contacting users individually. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Kimelea, we have a guideline that explains when one is and is not allowed to move other editor's comments. It is at WP:TALKO. I will leave it to you to decide whether this example fits any of the listed categories. In addition, there is an unwritten rule for RfCs that says that those who have taken a position should scrupulously avoid any appearance of editing or moving other people's comments in such a way that there is even a hint of making them more prominent or less prominent. There are always plenty of experienced editors who are neutral on the issue, so it is usually best to let someone else make such changes. What I usually do is ask. Here is an example of me doing this and getting an answer: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TenPoundHammer#Reminder_to_use_the_talk_page_for_discussion ]. If you ever have any questions about "the intricacies of Wikiquette", feel free to ask on my talk page. If I don't know the answer I will know where you should ask. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I asked my mentor about it but I think he's off for the weekend, so I let it go to avoid it escalating. What's your opinion on this example? I'd be much happier if someone with more experience than me decided whether moving the comment was appropriate or not. ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of factors in play here. First, the actual move. didn't hurt to make it, and discussions outside of the discussion section are annoying. The problem is that Niteshift36 just moved the one comment and left all the other places where other editors put comments in the vote section alone. That's wrong, but no great harm was caused by it. The second issue is whether you or I are the right people to address this. If this was some obscure page and the moved comment was from some newbie who didn't know you can complain I might take action, but this is one of the most visible pages on Wikipedia with literally hundreds of admins watching, and HectorMoffet has been around enough that he knows where to go if he has a complaint. I really think we should stay out of this one. You were right to ask the question, though.

BTW, another thing that was technically wrong but didn't do any real harm was Niteshift36 moving your comment here. The basic rule is, if we are discussing Kimelea's behavior we should do it on Kimelea's talk page, and if we are discussing Niteshift36's behavior we should do it on Niteshift36's talk page. Again, technically wrong but not worth getting into a conflict over. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds like excellent advice and I will follow it. Many thanks, and for the kitten as well, that really made me smile! Now I can relax about the whole thing and forget it with a clear conscience. ~ Kimelea (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Escalating it? What a joke. First, my actions weren't wrong. The editor (who doesn't seem bothered by it) was wrong to argue in the original section. Second, it was moved, with an explaination, to another of his responses. Kimelea, if you look at the edit history, you will see that I did NOT place the comment after something you said. My move was complete before your response was made. You are mistaken and you keep trying to act like I did wrong. Had you not tried acting like I put it in the wrong place or was trying to "hide" Hector's response (which is a serious allegation), I wouldn't have even bothered with further response. So you can "escalate" it all you want. I'm not the least bit worried.

As for you Guy, your advice to let it drop is sound. Your childish comment about "penis fencing" (which really doesn't seem all that accurate anyway) was completely uncalled for. Did you honestly think that provoking a response was the way to calm it? It's not "technically wrong" for me to move the comment here. If you bother to look, I routinely delete most things from my talk page. (and yes, that is allowed) Moving it here so it could be viewed with my response was a BETTER choice that forcing someone to go into the history to find it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm* Niteshift, that comment that I later added in reply to Hector's first one ("sounds fair enough to me"... etc) is nothing to do with this, it is not what I've been talking about, it is irrelevant. You moved Hector's comment so that it was one indent in from an EARLIER comment of mine ("I would like to support this proposal"...) which I left on Thursday at 20:58. You made the move on Friday at 14:51. The position you put it in made it appear to reply to me. Don't put words into my mouth please, I never said you were "hiding" anything, only that the move was misleading. Anyway, inviting me to escalate this closed situation into an angry argument is a tempting proposition but I must regretfully decline. My kitten would be ashamed of me. ~ Kimelea (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're tsalking about the number of indent spaces? Seriously? Whatever dude. Further, I didn't put a single word in your mouth. I said you were ACTING LIKE I tried to hide it. Of course you decline because there is nothing to escalate. With all the admins in that discussion, if something had been actually actionably wrong, all your "look-at-this" hand-waving would have certainly brought the interest of more than you and the penis-obsessed Guy. If you'd like, I can look around Wikipedia to find another molehill for you to try to craft a mountain out if. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Kimelea, I have found that the best way to not talk about something is to not talk about it, especially when someone is trying escalate the issue into an all-out war. WP:IAD has some really good advice about this. You may wish to delete this entire "Moving comments" section without commenting on it after reading this - with a few exceptions that don't apply to you (listed in WP:OWNTALK), users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is some free advice Guy: If you truly want to calm a situation you think is escalating, making childish references to a concept that doesn't even fit the situation isn't the route to take. No thanks needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but if Niteshift wants to talk about it I'm fine with that - just not with having a punch-up. (I can't 'penis fence' as I don't have a penis, so no worries there...) I would much rather talk about something and settle it peacefully than leave it festering, based on the good faith assumption that the other person is actually willing to resolve it and not just splashing drama around. I'd also like to leave the conversation here in case my mentor wants to read it and for my own future reference.

Niteshift, is there any particular reason you assume such bad faith on my part? Up until now you have been doggedly insisting that you were right and I was wrong. Now, realising that you misunderstood in the first place, you continue to blame me. Why? Who made a mountain out of what now? I left a neutral information notice for anyone else who read the moved comment - not a challenge, not a 'look at this' handwave, not addressed to you or admins. You asked me why and I answered. It was still very much a molehill. Next minute, you've got your guns out.

You also seem to have convinced yourself that I want to have you punished somehow. I honestly haven't a clue where you got that from. No, I didn't 'act like' you tried to hide it, it never crossed my mind that you would deliberately try to hide it, why would you? The only person talking about 'serious accusations' (or any accusations) is you. Obviously you thought moving the comment was best for the debate. I thought it caused confusion. That's all there is to it.

This is such an absurd thing for anyone to get hostile about, there is no right and wrong here and no need for blame, it's only a difference of opinion. Peace please. ~ Kimelea (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, trying to discuss this with you when you've o totally missed what transpired seems quite the waste of time. Have the WP:LASTWORD.... Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I am awarding you this cute kitten for keeping a cool head and giving calm, reasoned responses when other folks are getting upset and writing things they will regret later.

Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Better late than never

Hope this helps (although it's late) - NOTVOTE. Thanks Jenova20 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jenova, but could you clarify? Are you referring to the "moving comments out of the 'voting area'" thing? Is this an article you think I should take better heed of in future, or should show to others? ;) ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh no...i'm trying to avoid giving advice as it backfires spectacularly a lot of the time lately...

I found you the policy on counting votes instead of building consensus as you asked for on WormTT's userpage in this section: "Editor moving others' comments in discussion: help"

Have i got the wrong end of the stick? Jenova20 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, no, it's just the stick's a lot larger than you may have realised! It was a big ol' dispute that started with one editor moving somebody else's comment out of the 'voting area' because that area should be for voting. That didn't look right to me and I asked about it, but it turned into drama. I appreciate your effort to help though, and will remember that page in future such debates :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression you could comment under votes too since they're less important than the discussion. I'm having discussions on another article at the moment where it's being treated as a vote rather than consensus-building.

We're in the same boat so keep that stick for rowing =P Jenova20 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

First, it is a GUIDELINE, not a policy. Second, using the term "voting" doesn't mean that I don't know the guideline. I've been here for years, participated in hundreds of AfD's and RFC's. I know the guideline. I used the term "vote" because it is short, simple and I (mistakenly) thought you'd be savvy enough to know what was being said. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure your years of experience mean you are right and we are wrong, and there is no need to assume good faith when dealing with newcomers who are trying to help and learn. It must be my un-savvyness that means I still can't understand how moving a comment out of its context in a not-voting area aids in building consensus. However, since you said you were not willing to discuss it any more since I am not capable of understanding your evidently correct position, kindly stop following me around wherever I try to learn from the experience. ~ Kimelea (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking guidelines and essays that don't even apply don't fool anyone. Linking the same one multiple times just looks desperate. If you want to get technical, acting as if I don't know the basic guideline could be viewed as a presumption of bad faith on your part, so spare me. As for your allegation about "following you around", it's fairly ignorant on your part to think that it is ok for you to talk about me in multiple locations but expect no response while you do so. Want to stop hearing from me? Stop talking about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't link any of them more than once, and I'm not talking about you - I'm talking about something that happened, involving me, when others mention it. ~ Kimelea (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did. You linked WP:BITE twice. The third link and last link both go there. Whether you are talking about it because someone else mentioned it or not, you are still talking about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The third links to a humour essay, "please bite the newbies". Clearly you didn't click on it. ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, I didn't click on them because they didn't apply. Fine, my error. None of the pointless wikilinks were repeated. So it's not desperate, only annoying. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I have noticed a strong correlation between editors who write things like "I've been here for years, participated in hundreds of AfD's and RFC's. I know the guideline" and the same editors not following simple guidelines that somebody who has been here for years should know.

As an example I will pick a very minor issue - one that I would not even bring up except for illustrative purposes.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says:

"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" include "Fixing format errors ... Examples include removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC)"

Help:Using talk pages says:

"Comments are indented using one or more initial colons (:). Each colon represents one level of indentation. You will see these colons in the wikitext when editing a talk page, but when viewing the page itself you will see the indents."

"The first comment in a section will have no colons before it. When you reply to a statement, you should use one more colon than the number that appear in the statement you're replying to. For example, if you're replying to a statement that has 2 colons before it, your response should have 3 colons before it."

So in this case Wikipedia's guidelines clearly state that your practice of putting a bullet (asterisk) at the start of each comment is a "Formatting Error" which any editor can remove on sight.

Given that you appear to either not have read the above guidelines or think the rules don't apply to you, I'm afraid that you will have to put up with other editors letting you know when you fail to follow a Wikipedia guideline or policy.

Previously, I tried to explain a guideline to you using a lighthearted joke that many other editors I have used it on have said that they appreciate. Alas, you took offense, and so I must apologize. Humor is subjective, and I don't want to imply that there was anything wrong with you taking offense, but I assure you that I meant no insult. I am sorry and I ask your forgiveness. I will be careful to avoid humor in any future dealings with you.

Alas, I must now inform you that you have made a more serious error than an easily-ignored formatting error. Above you write "First, it is a GUIDELINE, not a policy" (all caps in original), but Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says:

"Enforcement on Wikipedia is similar to other social interactions. If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions."

Please note that both violations of policies and violations of guidelines are subject to other editors trying to persuade you to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, and that in extreme cases both are subject to administrators enforcing them with blocks. You implied that policies apply to you but guidelines do not. That's incorrect. It is Essays that do not apply, not guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Guy, you continue to get it wrong. First off, your selective quoting of part of a single part of a policy is misleading. Second, I don't care if you like or dislike my use of bullet points to make it clear where my response starts. Third, while I appreciate you offering an apology, it would have probably meant more when it became glaringly obvious days ago that it was not seen as humorous. Lastly, guidelines and policies are not the same. If they were, they wouldn't have different names, would they? What I correctly pointed out was that the guideline was being misidentified as a policy. Did you see me say that since it is a guideline it should be completely ignored? I chose to use all caps on a word to emphasize it. I could use bold print if that would make you feel better. Bottom line here, from my viewpoint, is that your attempt to sound like you are being polite and reasonable, while dripping with sarcasm and wikilawyering, doesn't work. It just comes across as dickish. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I don't care if you like or dislike my use of bullet points", what part of formatting error are you having trouble understanding? If you think my informing you that it is a formatting error is "selective quoting", please tell me where in that or any other policy or guideline it says that it is anything other than a formatting error. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not having trouble understanding it. I simply don't care. I'm not sure how much more plain I can state that. The other think you fail to grasp is that the guideline you are quoting only lists "some examples..." It is not an exhaustive, all-inclusive list. Trying to imply that if it isn't on the list, it must be verboten, is misleading. Bottom line: Even if my actions weren't correct, Kimlea took it too far when starting the finger-pointing and running to multiple venues when there were plenty of admins around to get involved if they needed to (and none felt the need to). Then you decided to make a poor attempt at humor, which did nothing but provoke it more. Both of you seem terribly interested in continuing this, but I'm not. I am done with you Guy. You've wasted enough of my time. As I told Kimlea, if she could stop talking about me, she'd hear less from me.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Kimelea, for your many contributions to Wikipedia over the past four months. I hope you enjoy editing with us and will find time to share a nice cup of tea. Go gently. All best wishes ♥ Span (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) I really needed that today. ~ Kimelea (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's good to take a break, back things up a bit, come back to the real world for a while. Time and space always help. If you need any help or have any questions please drop me a line anytime. Thanks for hanging in there. All best wishes ♥ Span (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tai chi rfd

I am in a small way involved, but whether that would make me an inappropriate admin to deal with the attacks I don't know. Probably not, but as I don't have the time (I've spent much more than I should on wp recently!) and I'm not very good with interpersonal issues I'm not the best to ask. From looking only at the RfD though I can't see that you've done anything wrong.

If your mentor is busy then WP:WQA is possibly a good starting point. I don't have much experience of it though. Sorry I can't help more at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll go there. Thank you for your help. ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Done

Niteshift36 (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I'm done with this on my end. Hopefully you and Guy will decide to follow suit. Far too much time has been wasted on it already. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

my dinnere

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.139.7 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No more coffee for you! ~ Kimelea (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

H.

Re: "It might be simplest to do so yourself..."

H. is perfectly capable of editing his own talk page. I have repeatedly told H. that I no longer wish to have any interactions with him. First he jumped in to a discussion I was having with another user (a fellow who sells an alternative to lightning rods for a living wanting to edit the Lightning Rod article to favor his product) "warning" him of how Evil I am. I was well on my way towards convincing that user to follow basic Wikipedia policies such as [WP:V] and [WP:OR] and to become a productive member of the community until H., in his obsessive desire to pick a fight with me, poisoned the well. These sort of actions don't anger or annoy me - my mental state is more of a detached bemusement at seeing such a pathological example of human behavior - but they are bad for the encyclopedia, so I have been deleting his comments from my talk page without an edit summary. Don't be surprised if he shows up here and tries to pick a fight with you; I am not his first victim. --76.194.208.221 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Anon. ;) Thanks for the warning, don't think I've done anything to cause a backlash though. Let me know if I can help, or would you prefer me not to TPS? ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)