User talk:MakeSense64

Welcome!

Hello, MakeSense64, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Versus22 _talk 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to point to the specific instance in the Wikipedia Manual of Style backing up your claim that Wikipedia does not publish software prices? On the contrary, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the cost of any particular software package is highly relevant. The price alone generally tells you whether it's a consumer shareware-type application (like Fractal Time is) or an enterprise-level application that costs thousands of dollars per seat. --Cyde Weys 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out the guidelines explaining what WP is not: WP:NOTDIRECTORY.See Point 4, quoting:

"... therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."

--MakeSense64 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I still contend that there is definitely a reason to publish at least a ballpark figure of how much software costs, as that tells you a lot about the software. However, the article in question is about an idea moreso than the software, so the cost wasn't doing much for that article. If the article was just about the software, though, I'd definitely include it along the lines of "As of January 2009, the software was $19.99 per license" — that is useful information. And by giving the date, you aren't creating a directory field of sorts that has to be constantly keep up-to-date. --Cyde Weys 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a long discussion on that topic here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_11#Price_guide_.28again.29, so I guess that's where you can have your voice heard on that point. --MakeSense64 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It looks like that discussion is a year and a half stale, though. Maybe I'll have to start a new one somewhere. --Cyde Weys 15:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment on the Elwell page, the bar does tend to be higher for academics, but not it seems for professors. A mini debacle I've had occasionally is over the notion that if someone has got the professor title in front of their name, there is a default position of notability. If you want to get a BLP quickly beyond new page patrol, make sure the person is called a professor - CSD-A7 won't apply. I don't agree with it - but there it is :) The plus side is that once academics are there, they're harder to dislodge as their work can be assumed peer-reviewed. This means that non-academics who produce worthy works, and those such as Mr Elwell, have a higher bar to jump when it comes to work and honour verifiability and General Notability Guidlines. Acabashi (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the distinction I saw being made on the pseudoscience guidelines. Since psci lacks the peer review process that normal sciences have, the bar is put higher for psci to get notability. So being published or the head of an institution is in itself not sufficient in the case of psci. In those cases the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines can establish notability.

Maybe I will try to put this question on some relevant noticeboard.

Today I came across this one Marina_Bai. BLP with notability for only a single event. Although it is a rather funny story, this is probably one for deletion. How would I go about that? MakeSense64 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God not another one - Astrology is a hornet's nest. I've added a find sources in the talk page. If it was just the one source you could have gone for Articles for Deletion, but there is stuff in GNews, GBooks, and the BBC, so no chance I fear - I've added a sources temp anyway - if you want to improve the article with the cites go ahead - I won't as I've had my fill for now with Elwell. BTW did you see that the Deborah Houlding article has been worked on and much improved by User:Tomwsulcer - I might have mentioned it. You might have noticed that Clooneymark has reverted Elwell and added more stuff. You could bring up a question on noticeboards about the odd teacher location and notability threshold level of psci - it would be useful to see if Elwell's gong is seen as worthy of mention. I think your intimation that psci are in academia because there is nowhere else for them to go is a sound point - it confused me as you found out. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for an investigation into Makepiece101 as a sock or meat puppet of one of the editors of the Elwell page - the account has been blocked see here. Out of courtesy, this information copied to other current editors of the Elwell talk page should not be referred to within the Elwell talk page. Acabashi (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. I understand. Didn't know that was even possible.

More strange things appear to be going on behind the screens. I don't know what to make of this:

I put my name on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astrology/Members a couple days ago, and one of the editors on Elwell page followed me there within hours. You can see Makepiece101 followed suit (and pretending to be a sceptic). But now 5 more new members have suddenly joined there, in what appears to have been a very inactive project with few members for years. Coincidence? Or is this more forces being mobilized?

I have been learning a lot about WP in just a couple days.

Thanks for keeping me posted. I think I will sit back and watch the show for a while on Elwell's page, perhaps making some quick comments.

Every suggestion we have done so far has fallen on deaf ears, and I remember the saying about leading a horse to water. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that two other users have been blocked at the very same time, and all were into editing similar astrology articles.

See here and here

Look at the articles they created : The_Sophia_Centre and Nicholas_Campion, WP standards ??

What to do with all this? As you say , it's a hornet's nest. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at this project page and it was the fact that Makepiece101 was added and indented under a name that clinched it for me in my mind, after being more than suspicious with the talk page comments and edit summaries. I can see only three who joined the project after you - if I'm misreading it let me know. The blocking administrator mentioned a number of blocks carried out, and Nick Campion on the list would be another sockpuppet. However there may be more that were attached to the editor's IP address that are/were invisible to us at the moment. But, I think your suspicion about sock or meat puppets being mobilized is sound. Administrators are able to see all edits and editor accounts on an IP address, and can gauge any abuse through writing style, loggons and loggoffs, strangely proficient brand new editors, who happens to be always supporting who, or who happens to be following who around articles.

If an editor carries on doing this kind of thing there would be, no doubt, a permanent block on their account. If it is shown that an editor is garnering forces for their point of view from other legitimate editors - usually through talk pages, but possibly through Wiki emails too, this would be grounds for a block. Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are two of the worst "crimes" that can be committed on Wikipedia as it can, amongst other things, be used to skew articles in favour of a non-neutral point of view and bully other editors, and is frequently used by those who wish to push their own point of view regardless of others.

Acabashi (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, only three tried to join after me according to the page history. Makepeace101 had removed the "inactive members" section (which I have now restored) , and that's why there were suddenly 5 more names below mine in the list.

The common denominator here seems to be astrologer(s) from the UK, who are basically controlling "their" articles on WP in every way possible, not caring about WP standards at all, and trying to irritate or push out any dissenting editor that comes along.

Maybe they don't know that links from WP do not add to search engine rankings, and to the extent that these BLP are often (near) orphan articles, are also getting relatively little traffic.

Given that astrologers need a reputation of honesty and trustworthiness to do their work, it is stunning to see what kind of strategies are being deployed here, just for the sake of keeping an advert style article with more external links up.

We will see what's up next. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all astonishing. I think I prefer my quiet little geography hobby!! Possibly because I dont come up against this kind of thing usually, Im not really sure what to say regarding Elwell edits, so Im now staying very quiet and would really appreciate advice? It still reads very "peacocky" to me and certainly not a neutral point of view but since our editor friend hasnt listened thus far I cant imagine him changing his mind and listening now. Panderoona (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's better to sit back and let the dust settle for a while. One critical sentence was added as soon as I suggested it, but given the rather large body of critical articles about Elwell it is not getting due weight imo. Adding criticism section would be much better, but how to get across that the criticism section is normally not written by the editor who is most obviously a strong proponent of the subject of the article?

I can easily imagine that geography articles are a lot more peaceful. I see you have done a great job in that regard.

MakeSense64 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has been blocked for multiple accounts. I suggest that all other editors of the page take the week-end off. Acabashi (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, looks like this new editor (3 days) has gone with it page

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there should be some formal protocol for advising you that I took the Algol matter to the NPOV noticeboard, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Algol_-_feedback_on_whether_.28and_if_so.2C_to_what_extent.29_pseudoscience_policy_affects_the_content_of_this_star_page. Zac Δ talk 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a good idea to ask for outside opinion if you have ongoing disagreement, and it is considered good form to let other involved editors know on their Talk page. Not just me, but also the other editors who have commented on the matter. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, anyone is free to tag my biography page – god knows, it probably deserves it. However, to do it twelve hours after I had reverted one of your edits, looks like an act motivated by personal revenge. This is WP:HARRASSMENT and not worthy of a WP editor. I don’t plan to report this incident, but ask that you strive to be less emotionally motivated and more objective in your editing practices.

Second, on the Astrology Discussion Page you wrote:

“The only thing I notice when astrologers propose a lede for this article is this: they consistently try to paint astrology as a 'study', probably because that sounds better. The statement that it is pseudoscience is always pushed out to the end of the paragraph. Why? Probably because at least some people do not read the lede completely and skip to the further sections rather quickly. So it looks like an excercise in making a frog look pretty. The purpose of the lede is not to make a good impression for astrology. ...”

When you refer to astrologers promoting astrology as a ‘study’ rather than ‘divination’, you can only be referring to me. As I stated on the Astrology Discussion page, I consider it important to focus on the content and not try to second guess the motives of other editors: WP:FOC. However, I feel that here I can reply in a similar analytical manner and if it feels uncomfortable, you are welcome to delete it.

I believe that your comment quoted above says a lot about your motives for editing and the basis of your argument. Given your history and pattern of removing legitimate astrology text, tagging pages of astrologers and astrology groups, polarizing arguments, inciting other editors and obstructing astrology editing (BTW this is a polite description); I can safely say that you have a serious dislike of astrology that goes beyond scepticism. So your belief that ‘study’ sounds better than divination a term which in your view will not ‘make a good impression for astrology’, indicates that your support for divination is based on emotion rather than a rational search for truth.

I am genuinely sorry that you feel that way about astrology, but giving priority to your emotions wastes a lot of good editing time. I am not saying that all you are doing is vandalism, as many pages need improvement. Personally, I would prefer to work with you towards creating better WP pages. Robert Currey talk 00:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you doubt that your biography page Robert Currey was tagged fairly, then you can always ask an outside opinion on it on a noticeboard.

I have been going through all astrologer pages on List of astrologers, over the course of several days, and you can see that in my edits, because I tagged many articles and did some cleanup. Then I started doing the same on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_astrologers, also over the course of several days.

I tagged your page when I came across it.

If you think tagging has anything to do with revenge , then you may check out WP:TAGGING

It makes no sense to go on referring to an editor (me in this case) as having a history of obstructive editing and so on. If that is the case then you can make a complaint on the page devoted to it and some administrator will look into it. But, he will then also look in the history of the complainer(s).

Continuously referring to an editor in negative terms on Talk pages all around, without bringing any Diffs, that is campaigning against that editor. That is more likely to be seen as WP:HARRASSMENT than my tagging an article that lacks in almost every respect.

Editors on WP are not expected to be without opinions. But continuously paint another editor in vague terms like 'has a history of..' that's not acceptable on WP. It is considered WP:BAITING.

So either complain, or back off on that. I will be back on Monday, so you have plenty of time to consider. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MakeSense64, you are still deleting material backed by sources without consultation on the talk page. Aries An editor spent time creating that section last month and the link to the page on howstuffworks.com no longer works. There is a source M Philips, Jill "Aries Personality: March 21 - April 20" Why not tag citation needed or ask for a link to back up the source or better yet see if one is available? I would rather not undo your edits again, I request that you revert the deletion, delete the web link and request citation on the discussion page. Robert Currey talk 06:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about an article usually go on the Talk page of the article, but anyway. This is what I removed : The Aries female is characterized by being independent and sure of what she wants. Aries females have a bold sense of style and like to be noticed for their brains rather than their looks.

Exactly the kind of stereotypes astrology you can find in very cheap books sold in railway stations and so. And the kind of astrology that a majority of serious astrologers also object to. You really consider that encyclopeadic material?

And even if the link had worked, howstuffworks.com doesn't exactly sound like a quality source to me.

You don't need my permission to revert an edit, but if you revert it then it better comes with a good source, and you will need something like "Aries male" as well, and also for the other star signs.

You seem to think that every edit or delete should be discussed on the Talk page first. That is not the case. The vast majority of edits on WP are just being DONE straight away, leaving an edit summary. If somebody reverts an edit (for good or bad reason), only then the matter is supposed to be discussed on Talk. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcurrey (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry I placed the requested bot code without signature. Robert Currey talk 06:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty damning account of you waiting there. I kinda want to know what your view of this is. Note that I am not judging, I just want to hear your half of it, too. CycloneGU (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed. I will post my reply as soon as time permits. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strategy of debate designed entirely to irritate, frustrate and force your opponent to act rashly. That strategy appears to be at work in the astrology pages right now. Don't surrender to any sudden impulses to do something that will give the baiting team excuses. I see myself in some crosshairs at the moment too, albeit for another matter, and may yet get my own mention in dispatches, so I try to never make immediate responses to vexatious nonsense. Even at ANI, no one will fault you for going to bed rather than staying online to answer every silly thing someone has to say immediately. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I haven't lost sleep over it.

Bold edits, reverts, or deletes are also a part of WP. They will get used to it eventually. I have previously pointed the "team" to WP:BAITING and WP:CRUSH. The latter article is especially relevant to what has been going on on the astrology pages lately.

Let them work on article a bit. It's only a matter of time before other editors pass by and challenge or remove everything that is not up to WP standards. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(content is moved here from User page)

Can you give a few examples of what is happening? I write a blog on editing Wiki for skeptical content and would love to see what is happening. Maybe I can help? Sgerbic (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now that my comment has moved. Can you give me a few examples of what is happening with they edits you are making? Sgerbic (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You can always check out my User Contributions to see what I am working on and what happens to my edits. Recently a lot of my edits are getting reverted, but that's how it goes on WP. I don't ask other editors for help, because of WP:CANVAS. What are you writing about at the moment? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've regretted (slightly) getting involved, so I'm going to let it go. Leave it for those who care & trust the sensible to prevail. (Overly optimistic? ;p ) Thx for the head's up, tho. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Unfortunately, when reasonable editors withdraw from that kind of silly discussions, it gives the unreasonable editors what they want: the place all for themselves. That can also not be the purpose. Let's see if DR helps to let common sense prevail. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi =) So's ya know: this AFD nomination, on which you've opined, has been amended (expanded to include 2 similar articles) since your comment, should you care to revise it. Cheers, Nikthestoned 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have added a comment. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zac Δ talk 02:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that following the discussion [here], you have been topic banned from the subject of Astrology, widely construed, and including all project spaces for a period of six months. Details of the ban are recorded here --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above AfD has been nulled due to sockpuppet-related issues. You're welcome to comment at the new one - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (2nd nomination). Cheers, m.o.p 06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and sorry to disturb you , but unfortunately I cannot understand nor am I happy about the fact that you are starting to delete even the 25k ITF Women's tournaments, because I think they are as notable as a 30k ATP Challenger that survives and there are so many notable players in these 25k tourneys (maybe there are some exeptions, but in general it is in the way I said it), that it should be kept in a 25k as they are now, so why removing them without removing men's 30k challengers? Catgamer (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikiproject tennis guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines only tourneys of $35k or higher are notable. That's the current community concensus, which was reached after a discussion that was kept before I joined the tennis project. Of course you can propose to change that on the WP:TENNIS talk page. Concensus on WP can change.

The project needs more active tennis editors, because a lot of tennis articles need urgent care. So I look forward to continue this conversation on the WP tennis pages. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how to reach these discussion pages for WP? Catgamer (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you once more, but can I become a member of the project and if yes how is this possible? Thanks for your answer.Catgamer (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the first paragraph on WP:TENNIS, there is a link to join (just add your name to the list), and one to discuss on the project Talk page. You can also join the discussion on Talk without being a member of the project. Of course, the project needs more members so feel welcome to add yourself. I also joined fairly recently. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MakeSense64, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted 2012 ASB Classic - Singles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MakeSense64, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Boycott of bnp paribas open by venus and serena williams, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: no reason was added, why the deletion of this page would quality under G6 (non-controversional technical task). You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 18:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, twinkle asks for an "optional rationale" when you tag an article with G6 - housekeeping, mentioning that the step can be skipped. So, a reason does not need to be given when it is non-controversial. This redirect page has no history at all, and is just an all-lower caps version. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love a challenge. I found enough significant coverage in reliable sources to improve the article... such as Politika, Hürriyet and several others. I gladly invite you to revisit Jelenin svet to see what was first nominated[1] has become significantly better.[2] Cheers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Big improvement. I have withdrawn the nomination. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the original version, I could understand the nomination... specially as coverage under its Serbian title was so limited. Thanks for looking back in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of Wheelchair Tennis Champions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johan Andersson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at No. 1, it says all about the rule. Yes, you are correct to think we have much work to do.HotHat (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a problem for you if I am editing the Men's Futures regularly (as I have already done it for the first 2 weeks of 2012)?Catgamer (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in that, as these articles were also created for years 2011 and 2010. Just don't try to create standalone articles for individual men's futures tournaments or draws for them, as that is very likely to be deleted. When in doubt you can always post a question on the Wikiproject tennis talk page. Nobody wants to work on articles only to see them deleted, so asking never hurts ;-) MakeSense64 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a comment regarding draft #2 on the page (titled "Alternative draft") —Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have added a new draft. Better (I think) MakeSense64 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately on the ITF Women's Circuit, the ITF site has changed to a beta one, all the printable drawsheets I used as links are now just linking to the website. What should I do? :shrug:

Keroks (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but one of the reasons you stated on why the article should be deleted is because Jankovic has never been ranked No. 1? Perhaps you should check? She has been ranked no. 1. Besides, I think the rivalry is very legitimate. They're both from the same country, they've both been ranked No. 1 in the world and there is obvious bad blood between them. And besides, every citation I've included notes the fact that this is an intense rivalry. I know a lot of recent articles about rivalries have been deleted but I'm pretty sure this is more significant rivalry then the ones that have (i.e. Dementieva-S.Williams rivalry and such). And it's unfair of you to say that it's just another head-to-head page. I mean, it's a pretty well written article, and I've included many facets of their rivalry and the significance of the matches they've played against each other. So maybe you should reconsider? Or discuss first before you just simply place a deletion tag on the article on the talk page. Visual planet (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to explain why you think an exception should be made for Ivanovic-Jankovic rivalry on the wikiproject tennis, where we are also discussing the deletion of Djokovic-Murray rivalry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis MakeSense64 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mention my name you do not deserve, no more, you do not deserve it because their actions are against me and insults me that much offended.All you do to chase away the people who love tennis, now you have started to delete all records related to tennis rivalries, I wonder if you delete articles Federer-Nadal rivalry, Djokovic-Nadal rivalry or Djokovic-Federer rivalry that I started.This what you do is ridiculous...Soundwaweserb (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing to tell you I'm a fan of tennis, that all. A Djokovic and not an individual, on my user page also includes Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray, I love tennis and Wikipedia also, is not okay to insult me and call that I am liar.Soundwaweserb (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work on WP. An editor who edits on WP can be mentioned by his username, otherwise we cannot address any problems. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an admin to close, you can put a note on Jenks24's talk page and undue his close. The vote was 3-7 and there are lots of other players, you know. I'm trying to remove a macron over here. Kauffner (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did contact him on his Talk yesterday and he agreed to reopen if I still insist on it. While the result may not change if an admin closes it, I think we should stick to our rules and policies, otherwise they get ever more diluted with the kind of results we see: it becomes a mish-mash when rules are inconsistently used.

I think we have to go for some clear tennis-wide decision, because otherwise we get a mixture of names, some-with-some-without diacritics in all our tennis articles. That cannot work because we are putting the player names alongside each other all the time in draws and articles about tournaments. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Saša Hiršzon - Alternate name policy". Thank you. --Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was looking at the leads in tennis articles tonight. While I 100% feel that the English sourced name should always be the article title and is bolstered by wiki policy, guidelines and common sense, I can be a little flexible on the order in which the name appears in the lead. The trouble is when I was sitting here thinking about it I then noticed that In ictu oculi had removed all reference in the leads to any ITF/professional names in bunches of articles. Jesus! He just put the foreign name up front and left the rest as if the English version doesn't exist at all. I thought maybe I'd be flexible and leave it his way but make sure some sort of professional name was also in the lead. First he reverted it, then he sent messages to other projects in hopes they'll do his dirty work. I thought I was doing the good deed by not reverting his change and instead I get a rock thrown my way. Just needed to rant before signing off with a headache... I guess I'll have to keep an eye open for more changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell WP:LEAD requires us to mention significant alternative names and alternative spellings of the name in the lede, even nicknames. The pronunciation can also be added if it is not obvious to the reader. If an article about a tennis player is kept at his "real name", then I think it is only logical to add the anglicized name as a significant alternative spelling, since they used that name for all or most of their notable activity.

For example Steffi Graf now calls herself Stefanie Graf, as we can even see on her personal website. If the Steffi Graf article were kept at her real name Stefanie Graf, then it would not be logical to remove "Steffi Graf" from the article, because that's the name she used for playing tennis, and it is tennis that she is notable for.

Nobody seems to have any problem with that line of thinking when it is about an English alphabet name, but the puppets start dancing when we use the same reasoning for the BLP of a person who has diacritics in their "native name". The editors appear who seem to come from national projects on WP, and they argue from a pov that suggests a WP:OWN attitude, which is considered a problem on WP.

Whatever, I came across something interesting when I looked at articles of sumo wrestlers. At Baruto Kaito I noticed they use his "real name" in the sections that are about his personal life, while his sumo name is used in the sections about his activities as a sumo wrestler. Could it be there is some guideline about using the most relevant name according to each section or paragraph? This could mean that in tennis player articles we should use the "real name" when it is about the person's life, and their "tennis name" when it is in section and paragraphs about their tennis career. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MakeSense64, This edit was made at 10:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC), which indicates that you are still stuck in the track of thinking that Diego Alvarez is a WP:STAGENAME for Diego Álvarez despite everything that has been said. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the reason why adding diacritics to names found in sources that don't have them (as is the case with virtually all our tennis sources) leads to problems. The reader of the article is left doubting whether the "Radek Štěpánek" found in a tennis article at WP is the same person as the Radek Stepanek mentioned in the sources for the article, it may be somebody else. Not very likely, but also not impossible. By the way, I don't remember having said anything about any Diego Alvarez, have never heard that name. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck. I didn't "send messages to other projects in hopes they'll do his dirty work" I did what a good Wikipedian should be doing as common courtesy, and you yourself should be doing, which is notifying the relevant national project of changes you wish to make to BLPs of the sportspeople of the country. Seconding a dormant RM proposal at Talk:Nikola Pilić to de-accent a BLP with a WikiProject Croatia high importance tag without notifying the project is only one example. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. You simply changed all the sentences without dialog and made sure the original lead name was defunct. You make changes to articles that you know are controversial and hope other projects will back you up. Projects with no tennis savvy at all in how the names are vital in the world of professional tennis which is the only reason these people are notable. Those projects didn't even create the players... tennis editors did. And now every edit a person makes they have to check all the projects listed and inform them? Nope. I'm starting not to buy your sincerity with the posts you have been making on talk pages about reverts. I could be making mass lead changes to players in the other direction but I didn't. I tried to bend but have seen nothing from you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@IIO. Please consider that the "relevant national project" does not "own" the articles about (in this case) Croatian players, even if they put a high-importance tag on it. Please read WP:OWN. Projects can have their say, but they are not the only ones who have their say. Be very careful with editing that seems to be based mainly on nationality. For example, yesterday you added the pronunciation to Sasa Tuksar, but not according to the relevant guidelines, so I removed your phrasing "the Croatian name..." and put it where it should be (behind the name in parentheses). Still hope you can go an add the pronunciation for "Tuksar", because now it is incomplete and may get removed. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still good practice to seek consensus with a Project with a "high importance" tag on an article regarding a proposed major change, that's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. When you edit a page you are not supposed to notify all the projects that have their tag on it. They are supposed to keep the article on their watchlist if it is highly important for their project. For example nobody can watch all tennis articles. But just have a look at WP:TENNIS down the page. All proposed major changes (deletion, requested move, merge, request for comment..) in connection with any tennis article appear right there. It updates automatically. Any other project can set up the same if they want to keep watch on all articles that are under their project. OK? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might want to make you all aware and especially you In ictu oculi that the Croat and Serb project would want use to follow native naming for the article titles that is the reason why we don't notify them because the would be overtly biased. For tennis players, we should follow what the majority of tennis publications written in the english language say we should use, which would satisfy UE. You all on the native naming side with the usage of diacritic all the time are flat out wrong on this the english language wikipedia. For most tennis player, it would mean to drop the diacritics from the titles and to put it under the secondary naming like we did with Novak Djokovic.HotHat (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and on the prowl, I will pounce if need be!HotHat (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Don't worry. If baseball can have its own naming convention then there is no reason why tennis should not develop the same in order to get some much needed consistency in the tennis coverage on WP. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you... it does get frustrating. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:TENNISNAMES. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TENNISNAMES redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am an expatriate and have family visiting me about twice a year. So, that's not time I want to spend on wikipedia. I suppose things took care of themselves during my absence, as they always do ;-) MakeSense64 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right... what a stew. Almost all tennis names have been changed to their diacritic versions and some big moves are under discussion as listed at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Not to mention the knock down drag out RfC going on at BLP RfC. So yeah... all is well. ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's idiotic to use foreign names in article titles on English Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote: It is easy to find out which rendering of a word or name is more common in English-language usage with Ngram Viewer.
• It is also easy to find which rendering of a word or name is most searched for, by using Google Insights for Search like this (note: sports category) or like this. Since articles are unlikely to be read if people don't find them when they search, this is surely one of the strongest WP:COMMONSENSE reasons for generally not using diacritics in article titles. LittleBen (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a useful addition to determine which alternative gets more search hits. While that alone will not decide article titles, there is good reason to use the most common name WP:COMMONNAME, because doing otherwise means that a lot of page searches are sent through a redirect, which eats more server capacity (so wp becomes slower and it costs more). MakeSense64 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad you like it. I agree that COMMONNAME is simplest, and thus is COMMONSENSE. I'd really like to get some stats on the "cost" of redirects, as I'm sure that such stats would prove—as we both seem to think—that redirects of common terms are very costly. Wikipedia seems to have been on its knees many times recently. Best wishes. LittleBen (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• PS: I think that the Pelé example that I cited illustrates both the problem and the solution. You cannot use the real name in the article title, because almost nobody would recognize it, much less remember it, and the article would probably not be found in a Google search. Although it makes sense to avoid accents where possible, and people are going to search for Pele without the accent (Google Insights for Search data for searches for Pele just in Brazil is very informative), maybe it's unavoidable to use the diacritic in this case—because the name looks stupid, even unrecognizable, without it. So people are forced to research the COMMONNAME, and use COMMONSENSE ;-) How dreadful that there can't be one rule that can be forced on everyone ;-) I guess that IIO wants to use diacritics in titles of France-related articles to show off his great knowledge of French. But if this means that fewer editors will want to work on France-related articles as a result, then Wikipedia is poorer for it. The converse applies. Kauffner is being threatened with a ban for removing diacritics from article titles. Whether that makes sense or not depends on local knowledge—whether some or all Vietnamese names look stupid or unrecognizable without diacritics. Sometimes the rules need to be modified, i.e. be flexible, to fit the real world. E.g. in romanization of Japanese, an "n" is changed to "m" before a "b" as in Shimbun or Shimbashi. LittleBen (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major guidance essay about that at WP:ON and it is linked directly from WP:COMMONNAME. I probably know more French than @IIO, but that doesn't really matter here. What matters is the spelling we find in English language sources, and if two or more different renderings are common in English, then we need to mention them as alternative names. No ifs and buts. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, buy what does prose mean in this statement. Scores should not be added to prose unless strictly necessary, in such cases the tiebreak score is omitted. Just report the round and whether the player won or lost the match, and whom they played. Dencod16 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Prose" is the text of the article as opposed to for example tables, photos, drawsheets, stats... So, normally we keep the scores of matches in the tables. In the text of the article, for example the career section in a player's article, we avoid to mention scores. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Andrewa#Use_of_sports_ranking_websites_as_.22reliable_sources.22. This guy is a piece of work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can only wonder what will be next. Jankovic and Gudjohnsen were closed as not moved today (without any motivation), despite the fact that both of them are spelled without diacritics in ample English-language sources and even on their own website/twitter. So, not only is WP:UE apparently more dead and burried than Osama Bin Laden, we now de-facto operate by the principle: "thou shalt write your name with diacritics if you were born with them". What happened to NPOV?

Did you see this recent discussion about the ongoing loss of editors and admins? The charts speak for themselves: [3]. But this can't surprise anybody. Do they really expect English-language editors to edit and add content in all kind of weird letters and other "eyesores" that do not appear on their keyboard? Really? I think more and more editors are taking this kind of stance: "You insist on using diacritics and special characters in all these names that are never written with them in most of our sources? Fine, but then don't expect me to do any editing on those articles". So, what is left is some IPs and editors connected to national projects, and we all know what kind of English language prose they add to tennis and other articles. What if we started working on the Czech WP, moving articles to English spelled names there? Then they would say we are "disruptive", I guess... MakeSense64 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting reading on the editor vacuum. Not a surprise really. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess IIOs "tabloid truthfulness", like Pinocchio's nose, keeps growing as we see here at Talk:Stephane Huet. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he sees "tabloid" sources in a wikipedia article then he is always welcome to tell on the article Talk which sources he proposes to use instead. He can also ask at the Reliable Sources noticeboard whether a certain source is acceptable or not. He will then discover that the reliability of sources is not based on whether they use diacritics or not.

From Latvia all the way down to Serbia, every language alters the spelling of foreign names to make it more readable (and/or retain pronunciation) according to its own language customs. How is "Serena Williams" written in Serbian? I don't think they are retaining the English spelling.

But somehow, IIO seems to think that English should be only language in the world that has to accept all "European names" in native spelling. Funny. Will be back next week. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I seem to be missing out on a lot of talk on astrology but unfortunately I have been inundated with work since Sunday. Since I told you I'd be around the next day to continue discussion I wanted to drop you a note and say that I still might be a couple days away. Just FYI, I am not in anyway attached to the wording I introduced and hope only to find a way to better summarize the article, so luckily it'll get figured out with or without me but I'm just ridiculously swamped. SÆdon^talk 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, things will take care of themselves even in our absence. I am in Greece for a week, so will also not be very active till the end of next week. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For doing your best to make tennis articles better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may not agree 100% of the time but even when we don't I always feel you are trying to walk the straight and narrow in doing your best for sports related articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not used to get barnstars, but thanks.

To agree or disagree should not be a problem, and even when two editors frequently have similar views about certain articles or topic area, occasional disagreement is a natural thing and shows that everybody is still thinking for him- or herself. That's how it should be.

I notice some remarkable stuff going on and now even ATP tournaments are nominated for deletion. What's next? The French Open? MakeSense64 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go look at my case at the talk page because I basically evicerate the wrong side in the matter. I am not pro or anti diacritics, I just want to see our policies implemented.HotHat (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just back from vacation. I will have a look on Monday. Implementing policies is becoming rare on wikipedia, but one can always try. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've posted some replies to your cleanup and merger proposals in the article's talk page. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note that the article 2004 Estoril Open has been nominated for deletion along with the subarticles Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind I'll reply on your page. I make no judgement on your good faith. I assume you are honest and sincere, but someone who is honest and sincere can also be the odd-one-out. Your WP:TENNISNAMES essay was roundly rejected. You are still free to pursue it however. But comments such as that "Zoë Baird or Zoe Baird" was reasonable demonstrate you do not actually understand the issues that are being discussed. I know you will not accept this. But I still encourage you again to look around Wikipedia, look outside tennis articles and see how wikipedia is. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If you make no judgment on my good faith then why are you posting the AGF2 template on my User Talk? Please remove it, or explain why you put it here.

Your latest comment on Talk:Ana Ivanovic page has nothing to do with WP:TENNISNAMES or with Zoe Baird, so please stop talking besides the point. You are accusing me and another editor of disruption and moving a lot of articles in this diff: [4]. Please bring evidence or remove your unfair comments. Thank you. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's your template I simply replied cut and paste. As regards the disruption I'm thinking of everything since Jan 15, all the tennis moves, all the tennis redirects, all the tennis RMs, all the 105x "café in English cafe" ledes. Compare that with 2005-2011. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no diffs illustrating anything you say.

Can you show me:

• Which "tennis moves" I have done?
• Which "tennis redirects" have been created by me?
• Which "cafe ledes" have been edited by me?

Yes, I have started 1 RM for Jelena Dokic, but starting a RM is not disruption and there is quite a bit support for the RM already.

And what's the point of "compare with 2005-2011"? Which policy or guideline asks us to compare to 2005? MakeSense64 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These actions are all by Fyunck, your edits as I have said are (i) the WP:TENNISNAMES essay (ii) continuing to argue for tennis names after the rejection of that essay, (iii) removal of diacritics guidance from MOS, (iv) repeatedly claiming that there are other ESPN/tennis name articles on en.wp (which you may sincerely believe) but refusing to give evidence or even go look for such articles. As far as (iv) goes I do realise that this is in part an unfair demand on my part because without knowledge of East European languages how can you possibly assess what en.wp is like, you have no way of knowing whether they are 99.9% at Chicago MOS (as I claim) or only 30% or 50%, and at this point I have no idea how to get over this problem either for yourself or for any other editor who cannot "see" that East European languages are 99.9% at Chicago MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "these actions are all by Fyunck" then why did you mention me in one breath?

As for your (i), (ii)... any diffs or a guideline that states that writing or mentioning essays is disruptive?

You simply make no sense whatsoever, and now you also become condescending. The editors who disagree with you "cannot see".. Yeah, that will be the problem... MakeSense64 (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat it is the deletion of diacritics guidance from MOS which is disruptive.

As for "see whether" my point is, if you cannot read French, then how can you judge whether French names consistently have accents on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can repeat it as many times as you want, but you are wrong. To perform an edit that was first proposed (by somebody else) on the MOSPN Talk page, and to which no objections were formulated for more than a day, is perfectly normal and not disruptive at all. The edit was later reverted and discussion has started, which is perfectly normal within the BRD cycle. Can you cite any guideline that says otherwise?

And where have you got the idea that I cannot read French? What if I speak French better than you do?

MakeSense64 (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would reduce the possibilities. There are really only 3 possibilities. (1) a person knows French and knows all of en.wp is 100% at diacritics for French and they know they are fighting a lone battle against the rest of en.wp, or (2) a person knows French but refuses to look at where en.wp is, or (3) the person doesn't know French. There isn't a (4)th possibility of an alternative universe where an alternative en.wp exists which doesn't have diacritics for France articles and bios. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about knowing French or not. I am not interested in that red herring. I am talking about your accusations of disruption, for which you have still not produced any diff or evidence. Why is that you are always trying to digress?

Do you have any evidence for disruption, or not? Stop baggering around, put up or shut up. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You asked. I answered. I don't have to know which of the 3 possibilities is the case.

As I mentioned above the primary edit of concern is going from a discussion about diacritics to then delete the diacritics section from MOSPN. You think it was a good edit. Fine. I don't. Agree to disagree.

You don't have to tell me which of the 3 possibilities it is. I'm assuming (3) as a sign of AGF on my part. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer anything. If you make accusations of "edit-warring" or "disruption", as you have been doing a couple of times already on various Talk pages, then you better be able to back up your statements (e.g. with diffs). Otherwise your edits are "disruptive". Agree to disagree is not good enough. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add to above. On the other subject, I still believe it would be helpful if you could indicate in which Latin-alphabet language you would prefer to examine en.wp usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - After taking the invitation to follow your edits since Jan 15th I recognise that your edits have entirely been on MOS or Talk pages, no problematic edits in article space, no deletion of sources, no non-WP:OPENPARA ledes, no creation of preemptive diacritic-to-non-diacritic redirects etc. Sorry about that. But as above I still believe it would be incredibly helpful if you could please indicate in which Latin-alphabet language you would prefer to examine en.wp usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction.

As for your question. What we "prefer" is not really helpful. I am here to edit according to the policies and guidelines as they are currently written. How about you?

If we think (as probably most editors do) that certain policies or guidelines are poorly written or could be improved, then we can propose changes on the Talk and if a concensus is reached (or no objections formulated) then the edit gets done. This is an ongoing process on most policy pages, as you can easily see. There is no reason why you or me should not participate in that. And once a change is accepted, then we can start applying it, not before. You are trying it the other way round, you are quietly making changes that are not always according to normal process or policy, and then you are going to say : "look, this is how en.wp already is; now we should change the guideline".

Let me end by saying this. The way you have been editing recently (e.g. on MOSPN Talk page) is heading you straight to ANI (or worse) sooner or later. I have zero interest in "bannopedia", and I am pretty patient, but any other editor may not be so patient when they see your ongoing pattern of little obstructions (like: starting new sections when there is an ongoing discussion, copy-pasting templates that were posted on your UserTalk, avoiding relevant questions, non-sequiturs, repeating arguments after they have been refuted, accusations without evidence, typecasting other editors, and so on..) and continuing them even after you have been warned multiple times. That's not going to look good, you know. Just saying. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 4, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used this diff about one of your edits here -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will have a look later on. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MakeSense64, I recently added a section on our WikiProject Tennis talk page with a few questions and suggestions about the project's goals as they are currently formulated (see WP Tennis – Goals). Looking for a bit more feedback than received so far (are we too buy with the diacritics issue?) and would appreciate if you can drop by and give your thoughts so we can hopefully (further) improve our tennis project / goals. Thx!--Wolbo (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had noticed the section you started and will have a look. But as you know, editing wp requires a lot of patience (and time). The project tennis does not have many active editors anymore, and I guess some of us are also watching the French Open for the moment. I appreciate your initiatives on the project and will give my feedback in due time. I just didn't want to make a hasty reply, it is something I need some time to properly look into. I am quite sure the project goals have probably not been changed (or checked) in ages, and I am also a relative newcomer on the tennis project. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have enshrined your misconception at User:MakeSense64#Tools. I think n-grams is a great tool, but it's no good for diacritics. Click through on the Erdos search link and you'll see... Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the good thing about it. Right below the chart you find a list of links showing us which renderings have been considered for their database. In the case of Erdos we see that the diacritics versions are not there. So then it is not conclusive in any way. In the case of doppelganger we see that both renderings are in the English database. Then it does tell us the relative usage of both variants in English books.

Is some error introduced by technology? Yes, I am sure. But the question becomes which error is going to be bigger: error introduced by technology scanning/reading a wide range of books, or the error introduced by humans seeing only a very small sample of the actual usage? As more and more documents get published in electronic version, so no need for ocr, the error of technology is slowly going down to (near) zero. While the error introduced by the human eye looking at a small sample will remain rather constant. WP is not a crystal ball, but I think it is only a matter of time till we embrace that technology to determine usage of words and names. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of doppelgänger, the diacritic comes almost entirely from book metadata; all the OCR'd text comes without it, as you can verify by following links on snippets without it in many cases. You may be right that this one is more common without the diacritic, but the book n-grams aren't useful evidence to that, as you can tell by looking at souffle n-grams, where it actually hard to find a book without the accent. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great summer break, and come back recharged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MakeSense64, you are the reviewer on Talk:Svetlana Kuznetsova/GA3. Should we assume that, because you're on extended break, you will not be completing this Good Article review, and send it back into the GAN pool? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I removed most of the scores per the guidelines. Sorry for taking so long and thanks for not closing it! :) Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 17:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you cull that listing strictly from the media or do you have a personal connection to the circuit?

Good to see my Officials article finally getting some use.

Greenguy1090 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a post of mine at the astrology talk page and inadvertently deleted yours too. I apologize for that. My purpose in deleting my own post was to avoid further fanning the flames after Zac jumped in and the discussion got far too hot. I thought I'd just swallow the points I was making and come back later. I am committed to maintaining a civil discussion at all times, but of course I am just as capable as anyone else of getting testy or losing my temper. I try to compensate for that by backing away if things get out of hand. When I made the deletion, in the editing box your post was up against mine without a space, as opposed to the other posts which were clearly separated from each other. So when I cut out the paragraph I had written, I got your post too. Sorry, I'll be more careful in the future.--Other Choices (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're supporting my proposal for non-diacritic Vietnamese titles per Britannica, but you could be clearer. Kauffner (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can always be clearer, but I also try to be somewhat concise in my replies. As a principle I don't vote because I think that arguments should be counted, not votes. So it will have to do with the "comment" I have given. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you have reverted my deletion of Category:Wheelchair sports from the article Wheelchair tennis, which is already categorized under Category:Wheelchair tennis and this is under the Category:Wheelchair sports. That means, the article is in any case categorized under the Category:Wheelchair sports. Please recheck and revert your edit since it is not necessary. Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How to handle foreign terms and foreign names in article titles is surely best defined by the appropriate MoS (regional), and this is not going to be found if there's no link to the MoS (regional) category from WP:Article titles. For example, an article on former PM Tanaka Kakuei (Japanese name order) should be titled Kakuei Tanaka, as you will find if you look in the MoS (Japan-related). Furthermore, this "rule" does not always apply, as explained here. So tell me, how are people going to work out the proper usage of foreign terms and foreign names in article titles without a link that allows them to find the appropriate MoS (regional) that explains it?
• Surely it is better to create regional MOS and get input from people living in that region than to try to cover every case for every country in the main MoS. (Thinking of the diacritics discussions.) LittleBen (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have mentioned the importance of doing adequate research to make intelligent decisions about issues like diacritics and article titles here and here. LittleBen (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally article titles are decided by our WP:AT policy and by "naming conventions" (if any) that may apply to the topic. "Manual of Style" (MOS) normally covers the article body. Of course, as you have observed yourself, wp policies and guidelines have become fragmented to the point of being virtually useless, because not rarely we have three or more policies/guidelines/mos all saying something about a given problem area, and not rarely contradicting each other. The result is that in discussions a lot of editors refer to the guideline or mos that offers the phrasing that is supporting their position, while negating the rest. Whenever somebody tries to resolve these policy conflicts, he gets opposed by editors who will defend their more favorable phrasing in every possible way. That's how wp currently "works".

You would do well to try to discuss policies and guidelines in their proper place, usually their own Talk page. See WP:TALK. For example "titles" and "names" are a different thing on wp. If you try to discuss "article titles" where the discussion is about "names", then your input is likely to be negated. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of action and outcome were you looking for with this report? In other words, if you had a magic wand, what would you like to happen? Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. If you go to report an incident (or a series of incidents) to the police, then do they ask you what kind of action or outcome you are looking for? Isn't it their job to know?

All I can do is report the problem and maybe tell them which law I think is being violated. The only thing I expect is that they take a proper look into it. And it's hard to have the impression that it is being looked into, when a minor clerk immediately comes out to file it away as a nothing-to-look-into with the edit summary "why is this open" MakeSense64 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are not "police" and ANI is not a police department. At this point, nobody sees a problem. Would it be OK to close out the report? Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they are in the role of police because they are here to implement and even enforce wp "policy", aren't they? I am going to respond to the latest comments over there, so I hope you can wait to close it. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are in the role of custodians, not police. Please see WP:AFNN. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see that's just an essay, may represent a minority view... And even if admins are just "custodians", does that mean it is my job to tell them what action or outcome they should take? I don't think so. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't serious. The admin icon you see on user pages has a mop not a badge. The essay represents a wide consensus of the community. In fact, you won't find any admins who say they play the role of police. Please take a moment to think about what you are saying here. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say , it doesn't matter: "even if admins are just "custodians", does that mean it is my job to tell them what action or outcome they should take?"

Or in other words, can you point me to any policy or guideline that says that it is my job to tell the admins what action or outcome to take? I have never seen anything like that, so you are welcome to show me. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. BTW, I've never seen you around here before. I read somewhere on this talk page that you stick to a certain area of Wikipedia and don't venture out of it too much. That might explain some of the confusion about the role of admins. This also tells me that the community has done a poor job educating average users about their role. What would you say if we brought this up for review somewhere else? Would you agree that the community has done a poor job educating users about what admins do here? Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. The WP policies and guidelines have become diluted and fragmented to the point of being useless. As a result procedures have become rather arbitrary in a lot of places/noticeboards. Things seem to be decided more on the basis of some users assumedly being "average" and not properly educated, rather than on clear policy. Are there also users who are considered "not average", a different league perhaps?.. just asking, hmmm.

Frankly, your comments here and on ANI are starting to sound condescending. You seem to assume that we are not calm. Where did you get that idea? How about stop projecting and start having a real look at the evidence that was brought on the table?

In answer to your last question. It is not the community's job to "educate" users, it is the users' job to educate themselves by studying our policies and guidelines, and by looking around how things work "on the ground". That being said, closing admins ( and closing non-admins) have a job to do in terms of communicating / motivating their closures. Because that's feedback that helps all editors to understand policy and concensus-building better. Closing something with the edit summary "why is this open", as you did, does a very poor job in that regard. And, that's where the problems start. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's follow your logic. You've been here since 2009 and you don't even know the role of an admin or what admins do here, but that's because you failed to educate yourself, right? Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is your assumption that I don't know the role of an admin. All I did was use a metaphor likening admins to police. I am not saying it is a perfect metaphor, but it was good enough to illustrate my point. And so far you have not brought anything to support the idea that it is somehow my job to tell admins what kind of action or outcome is needed. Unless you bring something good on the table, you can only agree that my metaphor correctly illustrated that point. What is it you don't understand about that?

Anything to say about the other points I brought on the table? Or are you only here to tell me I am an "average" editor who needs education? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just passing through. From my experience, depending on the administrator and situation, they are custodians, guidance counselors, teachers, police, judges, juries, and executioners. On paper their roles may be different, but in practice there's a wide variety. As far as that essay, it is certainly a minority view in practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. And regardless of their "role", whenever you contact a "service" in connection with a given problem, then it is their job to know what is the proper course of action in that case, once they have taken a proper look. I think ANI is more like a fire-department. They go out to solve a fire/incident as soon as it is reported. We can expect them to know what kind of action is required, don't we?

It all starts looking very strange when a problem is dismissed and closed without any explanation or communication. Why the hurry? Why are non-admins doing the closures on admin's noticeboard? Has WP run out of admins? Or are the WP policies so messed up that they can't handle all the work anymore? If Viriditas wants to work on admin's noticeboard, then why doesn't he apply for adminship? Talk about being "custodians", but cannot be moved to answer rather simple questions... I think most of the normal editors are not doing a good enough job of educating our "custodians". MakeSense64 (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MakeSense64

I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]