User talk:Serge Issakov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Bikeway 3 Thomas Jefferson 4 Pat8722 RFC 5 Irgendwer RfC 6 Naming Poll at Anaheim Hills 7 Anaheim Hills 8 Edit summaries 9 No personal attacks 10 City names 11 "Troll" 12 Problems achieving consensus? 13 Canadian city name convention 14 Irgendwar 15 liberalism 16 city names 17 Category:American Tour de France stage winners 18 Re: straw poll 19 Alfrem/Irgendwer 20 doping 21 Response to La Jolla, California 22 Re: City/Community Naming Conventions 23 Rfc 24 Community naming 25 Chicago, Illinois 26 Moving discussions 27 Ramsey/Karr merge 28 Hi:Merge Vote 29 Hello 30 Yucky 31 Spam 32 City Naming Polls 33 City renaming polls 34 What? 35 Do you like the setup? 36 Frustrating 37 Irrational 38 Systematic bias 39 Re: Chicago 40 Thank you, Serge 41 Er... 42 Renaming Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia 43 Seattle, Washington → Seattle 44 morons 45 Insults 46 Yogurt/Yoghurt 47 Naming conventions 48 Cork 49 Survey 50 ownership issue 51 Re: I don't get it 52 Stop with the moves 53 revised questions 54 Tainted poll? 55 Consensus 56 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) 57 Personal attack

[edit] Welcome!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bikeway

Hi! I copied your Bikeway content over to Wiktionary because it looked like a good dictionary definition to me (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bikeway). I was wondering if you planned on expanding the article further or if you think it will stay as-is. Tobycat 00:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No current plans to expand it, but it should be. I guess I should label it a stub. Thanks. --Serge 00:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Jefferson

Just a note that the edit you reverted on the Thomas Jefferson article, the person that removed that sentence is the same person that added it, so they probably just decided it wasn't worth putting in the article. I don't think it's possible to vandalize yourself. =] Peyna 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pat8722 RFC

A request for comment has been filed in response to User:Pat8722's behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to certify or add your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irgendwer RfC

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: What part of "no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities" do you not understand? — The part in English, I guess. :P —Tamfang 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Poll at Anaheim Hills

Hey Serge, I know you're passionate about neighborhood naming conventions, and there's currently a discussion and poll at the Talk:Anaheim Hills page regarding a move to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California." I thought you'd want to drop, check it out, and vote (despite the fact that you and I tend to disagree on this particular matter). Soltras 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me on the Anaheim Hills name change portion of the issue. I am kind of getting tired of constantly being bashed by these big Wikipedia names who do things just for the sake of convention. I am trying to change the naming convention not just for Anaheim Hills, but for all communitites that have paragraphs as their title (which defeats the purpose of the article). I am glad that their is some sun shining through the clouds because it is nice to have someone that agrees with you sometimes. --Ericsaindon2 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

AHhhh, Im being attacked for changing the name! I cannot believe that the Anaheim Hills name was blocked from changing. That is ridiculous. It doesnt state this convention anywhere on Wikipedia, so how can it be ethically changed? --Ericsaindon2 03:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anaheim Hills

Would you vote on the Final Naming Poll on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page by Monday, June 6th at 11:00 pm pst. This is a collaborative effort to determine where the Anaheim Hills page will rest forever with no disputes. There are currently four choices to choose from, so go and check it out. --Ericsaindon2 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

While I believe that Irgendwer's attempted addition to Libertarianism is nonsensical, badly written, and confusing to the point that no amout of copy-editing would be capable of saving it, and the best solution is to just remove it as you have been doing, I also believe it to be counter-productive and uncivilized to add edit summaries which include the words disruptive and troll. Additionally, it may be inflamitory to include the word vandalism in those summaries in which you revert that addition. I hereby make a personal appeal to you to refrain from using those potentially volitile words in your edit summaries in the future. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 08:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please stop referring to your fellow editors as "mild autistics".[1] -Will Beback 01:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As an apparent member of the "group", I don't appreciate being called autistic, either individually or collectively. I didn't complain the first time you made the reference, but you seem to think it so funny that you've repeated it. Please don't do so again. -Will Beback 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Will Beback 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City names

What happened, as far as I can gather, is that we argued forever, and then everybody got tired of it, so we ended up with the status quo. If you want to restart the discussion, I'd continue to favor changing the rule (but only for major cities - I think the default should be "City, State," but that if it's clear that an American city is the primary use, we should move it to just "City"). I'm not sure about the Hollywood case. The current location is dubious and unpleasant, but I'm not sure exactly how that sould work - I kind of agree with Bkonrad that the most common usage of "Hollywood" is not for the place, but for the American film industry, and that Hollywood, California might be the best location for that. john k 07:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Troll"

I don't think he's a troll, but honestly thinks he's helping and just doesn't really understand Wikipedia. Starving hasn't been working in any case. It took stupid amounts of discussion before, but the "political" issue eventually stopped being an issue. I'm hoping engaging will work again. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems achieving consensus?

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Serge 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no controversial edits because their is no controversial critics. You are reverting only. This can be considererd by other users as vandalism. Nice day! --Irgendwer 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian city name convention

In case you're interested: Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board#Canadian city naming convention -- Usgnus 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irgendwar

He's getting worse, and Tamfang is getting nowhere with him except into lengthy original-research discussions about the nature of libertarianism. Time for arbitration? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that was mediation. Mediation, being inherently cooperative, requires acceptance by all parties. Arbitration does not require acceptance by Irgendwar, and the Arbitration Committee has the authority to impose bans, blocks, and other sanctions regardless of what Irgendwar would like. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily be party to the Arbitration, but I think I'm far from the primary person involved (apart from Irgendwar). Tamfang seems to be right now, as were you and rehpotsirhc during the earlier "political philosophy" ridiculousness. Do you feel comfortable requesting the case be opened? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If I was forced to guess at gunpoint, I'd say User:Hannatk is Irgendwar, but I think we could be wrong. I've asked that user why their first edit was to get right into the middle of a controversy with a long history. We'll see if they answer, and if not I'll ask a developer for a sock-check. Until then I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt.

I don't really have the time to collate all the information needed to start a proper arbitration request either. I'll ask Tamfang. Since you were posting at the same time, perhaps you could query rehpotsirhc, or maybe Rhobite on whether they could? Alternatively, perhaps they would be willing to prepare it on a separate user page, and one of us could review it and apply for arbitration using it. That would be nicely Wiki-ish. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not overloaded with energy, but .. what's the procedure? —Tamfang 05:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

---

His edits don't actually qualify as vandalism per Wikipedia's definition (it falls under both "NPOV violations" and "stubbornness" in Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not). So, it just hurts our case against him to mischaracterise his edits as vandalism and it's best avoided. I'm preferring to revert him with a "not consensus" rationale. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] liberalism

Hi, Serge. Thanks for what you have been writing on the talk page of the liberalism article. It makes sense to me. I started a poll on that page. Could you check it out and vote in the poll? Thanks. Shannon^{duck talk} 08:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] city names

Er, yes, you are missing something. The suggestion for Italy is to disambiguate when necessary using City, Region. The rule for the United States is to always disambiguate by City, State. I think the latter is stupid, but I'm perfectly alright with the City, State format in most cases - it's only for big cities that aren't ambiguous that I find it annoying. john k 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In a number of places you place the blame on the {city, state} "convention" on some sort of automated program that wrote hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I submit that this "convention" only reflects the prevailing vernacular - Americans tend to formulate place names based on postal designations and standards imposed by the U.S. Postal Service. In other countries, the city usually stands alone in mailing addresses and is not combined with a county, state, province or other country subdivision. Only in cases where disambiguation is necessary are cities followed by additional information, and even then, "states" or other subnational entities are not always used; consider "Frankfurt am Main" vs. "Frankfurt, Hessen", which one would never see. In the U.S., however, a town or city must always be followed by the state (or, more recently, a two-letter state abbreviation) when written in a mailing address. This is simply ingrained into the American public from elementary school on. All the time I see instances where, outside of a postal context, people will still provide a reference in a postal format. For instance, when giving the location of an upcoming event to someone living nearby, people will write "123 Main Street, Springfield, US 12345" as if the recipient would be writing a letter, and as if the recipient doesn't know that nearby Springfield is in the same state that they are. "123 Main Street in Springfield" would completely suffice. I agree that the latter formulation is more elegant, but to many Americans, seeing a city name "standing alone" feels incomplete or non-standard. Perhaps it is a "Puritan" strain of American culture to have to clothe an otherwise "naked" city name with the corresponding state name. You may not like it, but I think it might be a bit unfair to put down other editors when they are simply reflecting what is a general convention - and not something isolated to Wikipedia. Totallypostal 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My explanation is at User_talk:Totallypostal --Serge 14:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American Tour de France stage winners

Perhaps I'm missing something, but wouldn't it be prudent to consult with the creator of a category before one submits it as a candidate for deletion? Doing so could save a lot of time and energy on the part of everyone who gets involved in the discussion, that perhaps could be more efficiently remedied with an explanation on the Category page itself. In the case of Category:American_Tour_de_France_stage_winners, if you had asked me first, I would have provided an explanation/justification to address your concerns/questions on the category page, and the discussion currently going on could have been avoided. Anyway, something to keep in mind. Thanks. By the way, do you have any concerns/questions besides what you stated on the categories for deletion page? --Serge 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda here, I was just cleaning up the uncategorized categories list, and it really isn't realistic for me to write 209 letters... However, in light of persuasive arguments by you and Mike Selinker, I've changed my vote. I still think the current setup isn't really correct, skipping a level like that, but we should keep it and eventually I think it will it will all work out. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: straw poll

Ah, yeah. I'll keep an eye on that section and jump in, if I can, though at the moment I'm too afraid of messing you up, heh. :) Good luck. Luna Santin 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I fear that his lack of logical consistency means that he will actually be unable to understand why his argument lacks it. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm hoping he actually does value logical consistency, and honestly did not realize his position lacked it. But I'm not holding my breath. We'll see. --Serge 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. There's a recent development at Minarchism. [2] Irgendwer tagged it with a {{citeneeded}}, which I then satisfied with one of the references already used. Brand new user (first contrib) reverted me, and in the next few minutes, he's up to three reverts, I'm at two. I've finally gotten the newer user to discuss, at the talk page. I'm not sure, but part of me has a hunch this is connected; or, at least, Irgendwer's part in it. Luna Santin 13:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer has threatened to start sockpuppeting, saying in response to an administrator who handed out warnings and eventually a block that "many admins are playing me for a sucker now" and that he will consequently change accounts. Vahonia (talk • contribs) might be a sock as well. If they keep looking and writing like Irgendwer, we should do a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser on them and Alfrem (talk • contribs) (Irgendwer's likely original account). — Saxifrage ✎ 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfrem/Irgendwer

Howdy! I noticed that you tagged Alfrem as a sock of Irgendwer. A note, I believe Alfrem to be the better root account, as it was sanctioned and dismissed from project a year before Irgendwer even appeared. IE, Irgendwer is the sock of Alfrem. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically Alfrem would be an abandoned account, leaving Irgendwer as the main account before it was blocked. It's not quite an academic point, because with the Alfrem account's inactivity it's more practical to tag the Irgendwer account as main for other editors. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] doping

Sorry, I thought they were already suspended. I'm just trying to make sure cheaters are reconized world wide and not just in one specific sport. I might have jumped the gun on the cyclists but I'm sure time will show it right. Outside Center 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely Jan Ullrich should be part of Category:Doping cases in cycling as he was banned by the German Cycling Federation in 2002 ? KeithW 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to La Jolla, California

Personally, I am kind of tired of these admins who keep making up these nonexistent rules, like you pointed out on the La Jolla, San Diego, California page. It is always the same four or five people that disagree, and go from community to community just trying to fight the name, and it is sickening. I cannot seem to believe that they selectively protected the page, so that it was positioned in a way that it was protected on their version (referring to these abusive admins). Now, I voted and made a statement, and will frequent the page, and support your community agenda for our goals are similar, enforcing the naming rules. But, I must warn you that if the admins begin to think I am a sockpuppet of someone else (like they thought I was the sockpuppet of user:Ericsaindon2)-actually, I think they just wanted to name everyone who supported (community) to be named my sockpuppet and to name all other parties involved user:Ericsaindon2's sockpuppets, so that they could have ultimate (yet abusive) control of naming communities. It was a disasterous mistake on their part, which they still have never said sorry for, and which took 2 months to clear my name. I am just telling you to be careful, for they can get really abusive with their powers. Cheers. OC31113 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: City/Community Naming Conventions

Thanks for the note, Serge. I used to disagree with your cause, as recently as three or four months ago. However, you have convinced me with logic and reason. Soltras 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

Serge, I have a great idea. I believe that we should begin an Rfc for communities in general so that we wont have to do this same thing for every community. I am looking through records, and an Rfc has not been conducted in the issue for over 20 months. With fresh ideas from others, and a persuasive complaint on the Rfc, it is sure to be a winner with the general audience. What do you think? OC31113 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Maybe an Rfc is not the solution at the present time, but lets face it, we have gone from community to community fighting the issue, and its always the same arguements with the same people saying the same old stuff. I know that both La Jolla and Anaheim Hills will not be greatly affected (since both communities are seeking cityship and will have the naimg convention in their favor upon the passing of these proposals) but for the other communities, it needs to be done. OC31113 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community naming

I personally don't understand why this seems to be such a big deal regarding community naming. I gave my opinion, and will let consensus decide the results. I also don't think that the methods of other encyclopedias should be the methods of Wikipedia by default. The two principles I consider first regarding communities and cities are avoiding ambiguity and consistency.

The vote seems to have shown consensus to be towards the community, city, state method, and particularly against community name only, so why fight it so vehemently? Why not let it go for now and work on other things? If it really turns out that we've made a bad decision, I expect that consensus will eventually shift on its own as editors develop experience. I see no reason why we shouldn't let the current paradigm hold for a while and see how things develop. Sxeptomaniac 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. OC31113 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago, Illinois

No, I certainly don't mind your comments at all. I don't have any plans or any real inclination to go around making a push for other cities to move, though. I just happened to be looking at the Chicago article before I proposed the move.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have anything against participating in general discussions to revise the policy. I'll put the talk page for the cities-naming-policy page on my watchlist.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't really have to do anything, just wait for an administrator to close the request and perform the move. This is supposed to happen about five days after the request, so expect it any time now.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I already voted supporting the move sometime ago. Anyway, I am also interested in trying to prevent mandatory usage of the City, State convention. At the very least, they should be used only when disambiguation is necessary. Personally, I would even prefer that the convention be scrapped and the parentheses disambiguation method used instead. But that is probably a more difficult fight. --Polaron | Talk 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving discussions

Please don't move discussions from one page to another. -Will Beback 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion appears to concern the city naming convention, not the naming of places. -Will Beback 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, now we have a move discussion :-). See my sorry [3] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsey/Karr merge

Done. My reason was that Karr is not independently notable. Since he is notable only through his connection to Ramsey, he does not qualify for his own article.--Srleffler 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi:Merge Vote

Hello, I noticed that you are active once again in the Anaheim Hills debate. Well, now they are venting their anger out on me by trying to get two community articles to be merged to this one. Both articles are far larger than most community articles are, and it appears to be an effort of venting their anger out on me (for I vastly created the two articles). I would appreciate it if you would vote to oppose the merge, for both articles are 5 paragraphs, and are by no means "stubs". I am sick of these admins picking on all of us for disagreeing with us on the naming convention. Once they loose one case, they find something else wrong. It is getting tiresome and needs to stop. So please show a vote for opposition. Thanks. Ericsaindon2 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

What are you talking about? You have never approached me to be your ally. Ericsaindon2 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that I did'nt want to be your ally, for I really do want ally's against the admins who made up this fake convention. I was just kind of confused, because you never had approached me before about being an ally, and your statement made it sound like we had this big "plan" or something. If you would still like to work on my side, I would appreciate it, and I am sorry for any misinterpretation.Ericsaindon2 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Call me dumb, but I still do not know why you are so upset. I just said you never talked with me about working with you, and I said I was willing to work with you. I am not playing any games, or trying to trick you in any way, I was just honestly a little confused.Ericsaindon2 20:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yucky

Yes - I can't think of a meaningful rebuttal! The policy is obviously meant differently she says weakly (Note no visual clues but that was tongue in cheek). Perhaps because it is the death of a third person ... I don't disagree with you its just I don't like it. It doesn't seem ethical ... but I don't disagree with you or your interpretation of the policy and I can't think of a better way to frame the policy. I think it is congruent with all the rest of the wikipedia policies. --Arktos ^talk 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

A reminder that it is poor form to solicit votes in a strawpoll in a biased manner. Better just to announce it and not hand-pick sympathetic voters. -Will Beback 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have cited the guideline, Wikipedia:Spam#Votestacking:

• Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of an upcoming vote, such as via a userbox or other user categorization. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.

• Canvassing can be deleted on sight by admins and editors alike and, again, individuals found to have disrupted Wikipedia by canvassing are often blocked.

If the merits of your argument are sufficient then votestacking is not necessary. -Will Beback 21:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City Naming Polls

I'm glad that the city naming issue in general is starting to be debated in a more general level. I think that's where the focus should be. While I would vote for any city article to be titled without its state (barring ambiguities), I don't think creating straw polls for every major city is necessarily the correct procedure. In Chicago for example, proponents of the "City, State" format may a year from now, claiming not to have been part this summer's poll, begin a new poll to move it back. I think all the polls are creating an air of bitterness and is polarizing the two main camps, which is counterproductive to the greater goal of debating city naming in general, not just repetition of the same arguments on city talk pages across the country. Soltras 19:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City renaming polls

Serge, just contact me for each poll and I'll lend my vote gladly. This [[City, State]] convention as a strict rule has got to go. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

If you start or come across other polls where well-known cities are to be moved to their common names then please do inform me as well. We should definitely not be bound by the guidelines to use the pre-emptively disambiguated comma convention for US cities. No one has ever come up with a single good reason other than citing that guideline for keeping cities at the comma-style article name. --Polaron | Talk 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

There was not one thing in my statement that talked about exceptions. I said simply that I do not want to start another ripple affect, where you go city hopping, and create all this controversy. It seems downright stupid. I would say that instead of trying to enforce change on a handful of cities, and taking months on each attempt for a result, you need to get consensus to change the whole convention. There are over 45,000 cities in the US, and you have acomplished 2. Now, I know why you are doing it, and I do agree with you, but I do not agree with the way you are going about it. Ericsaindon2 05:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you like the setup?

On the User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox, did you like the formatting? I tried to condense the situation as best as I can. It might allow your point to be verified on a larger scale, since many people like your convention, including myself. I think that it is a fair way to gain consensus, and conduct many cities of similar nature in one strawpoll. If you like the way it is set up, please let me know, or state it on the talk page of the User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox, or if you dont, please state that as well. I want to made modifications, and get the ball rolling! Ericsaindon2 22:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frustrating

This whole business is incredibly frustrating. What puzzles me is that there was such a strong near consensus to move Chicago, and then every other page where moving has been tried has seen major opposition. Was it just that the Chicago move caught the opposition unawares? Did you leave messages in a particularly effective manner? I don't really understand what happened.

I would have hoped that with Chicago successfully passed through, the argument could be made that the convention is merely a guideline, and that we could move articles as we liked, without worrying too much about the naming convention. This has seemingly proved not to be the case. Once it gets to a question of changing the general policy, I'm afraid the chances aren't good. In any debate over policy, there is a self-selection bias by people who like there to be lots of rules. That makes it incredibly difficult to change the general rules, especially since it becomes so difficult to propose a general change. I would strongly support changing the US conventions so that for cities whose names are not ambiguous, "City" is the standard. I proposed something like this two years ago (with the caveat that whenever we were in doubt, we should stick with the "City, State" format), and nothing ever came of it, for the most part because the people opposed to a change stopped arguing about it, and it just died down.

So I'm feeling kind of fatalist about this. Last time there were a lot more old-time wikipedians agreeing with our position than there are now. This feels kind of doomed... john k 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully concur. But then there's this inexplicable opposition. I've no idea what actual steps could be taken to effect a change. john k 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrational

Please do not make statements implying that I've called anyone irrational, when I haven't. Thanks. --Serge 03:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements such as I don't see how progress can be made in such an irrational environment ([4]) and But I suggest the inability of anyone to actually state what it is is that it's not really there. That creates an irrational basis for decision-making, by definition. ([5]) appear to say you think some of the involved parties are being irrational. Perhaps if that was not what you meant, you should clarify that. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "let's try avoid calling others 'irrational'. " I did not call anyone irrational. There is a world of difference between an irrational person, and an irrational statement or act. Please respect that. I do. Thanks. --Serge 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic bias

Hi, Serge.

Could you please tell me which of the two you would prefer?

• en.wikipedia.org - the online encyclopædia for the English-speaking world, not biased towards any particular country
• A split into usa.wikipedia.org (written by Americans, for Americans) - and other-en.wikpedia.org (for the rest of the English-speaking world)

I would be interested to know which scenario you would advocate.

Thank you, EuroSong ^talk 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My preference is the first... no split. However, when the name indisputably used most commonly to refer to a subject of a particular article happens to be one nearly exclusive to a particular country, there is not much we can or should do about that. According to WP:NC(CN), that must be the title of the article. It is certainly not a reason to use a name instead that is hardly used anywhere to refer to that subject.

--Serge 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are talking bollocks mate. Your claim that it is indisputable that Popsicle is the most commonly used term has no basis in fact. If you are refering to your Google search, then it prooves nothing. It would be the height of absurdity to claim that Google searches are the result of an unbiased sample. Where is Google based? Oh yes, that would be in North America. Where are the largest quantity of internet connections and internet sites? Oh yes that would be North America. What is systemic bias? Oh that would be ignorant people thinking that their culture and way of doing things is the only one in the world that should be taken into account. Take a look at my example regarding Cricket and Baseball Google searches, Cricket gets about 78 million, but Baseball gets 281 million. But Cricket is the most popular sport in India, the second most populous country on the planet. It is certainly true that more people watch and participate in Cricket than in Baseball. Baseball just has a greater exposure on the internet, it is an example of a biased sample. Even if a term is the most commonly used term that does not in and of itself proove that it is a common name, after all common implies used or recognised by all. The naming convention (CN) also states in the Exceptions section that Some of these exceptions follow from guidelines that give recommendations for enhanced precision, cleaner disambiguation and/or solution of naming conflicts, which might lead to article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used". I would suggest that ice lollypop is far more obvious than the rather obscure popsicle. This section of the convention also states Other exceptions are contained in the Manual of Style, for example the National varieties of English section in that guideline leads to fixed-wing aircraft being used instead of aeroplane or airplane, in order not to give precedence to either British or American spelling. You are trying to cite a convention that clearly gives no support to yout biased POV pushing. You should probably go and have a look at WP:NPOV as you seem to have no understanding of the most fundamental aspects of neutrality. Alun 17:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• within the U.S., at least, the generic use of "popsicle" to refer to the subject of the article is much more common than the use of "ice lollipop" anywhere. (see here)

You make my point for me within the U.S., but this encyclopedia is not only for the US. It is also incorrect to refer to popsicle as generic (1 a : relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class : GENERAL. b : being or having a nonproprietary name), you clearly do not know what this word means. Popsicle is a trade name (or Trademark) it is certainly not generic. See the difference between Paracetamol the generic name for the drug and Panadol [6] not the name of the drug, but the name of a product. The term ice lollipop is descriptive, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used". But most importantly you have not shown that Popsicle is the most common word in the English speaking world, at best all you have shown is that it is the most commonly used name in North America, and as such your argument holds no water and becomes little more than POV pushing or personal preference rather than a proper argument. The popsicle article should be about the specific product and not about ice lollys generally. Alun 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, Serge.

I see that this issue has now spilled over into the aircraft article also. *sigh*

Listen: I do understand what you are saying. From a certain perspective, you do have a valid point. You're saying that the most common name should be used when it comes to article titles. That's all very well and good when it comes to uncontroversial matters, where there is little international disagreement. For example George W. Bush is the common name for the American president: people don't go around calling him "Walker". Also, although the Prime Minister's name is "Anthony Blair", as on his birth certificate, everyone just calls him Tony Blair. So yes, that policy of using the common name is just fine for such situations.

However, you must also understand the other side of it. There are situations where different countries can have different "common names" for things. Yes, it is undisputed that the common name in the USA for those snacks is "Popsicle". That's just fine... and if this were usa.wikipedia.org, there would be no question whatsoever that that should be the correct name, because that's what 100% of American people call them. But this is not usa.wikipedia.org. There is only one English-language Wikipedia, and it must be shared between all the English-speaking people of the world. That means that different countries' language use are equally valid, regardless of absolute numbers. Yes, the absolute numbers on Google show more hits for the American words... but that's only because the population of the USA is greater. You must surely understand, however, that just because one country is very big, that does not mean the rest of the world have to simply submit to that country's way of doing things - especially when words like "Popsicle" are totally foreign to the rest of the world. At least the word "airplane" is close enough to "aeroplane" to be understood.

I want you to understand also that if there were an article titled by an exclusively British name, which was not understood by the rest of the English-speaking world, I would also be saying the same thing: that an international compromise must be found. This is also not uk.wikipedia.org :)

So... I hope we can understand each other now, and settle this amicably. I do not blame you for being patriotic: that's fine. But you also need to look beyond your own borders. By the way, are you of Russian background? Your name does not sound American.

All the best, EuroSong ^talk 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: "if there were an article titled by an exclusively British name, which was not understood by the rest of the English-speaking world" A recent example of a situation similar to this was the recent move of Athletics to Athletics (track and field). David D. (Talk) 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Chicago

Thank you for letting me know, Serge. I was away from Wikipedia but do agree with the name change to Chicago. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in this matter. I am only on Wikipedia sporadically these days, but I will try to keep an eye on further developments. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, Serge

I want to thank you, Serge, for the enlightening discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doomsday scenarios. When I originally protested MapleTree's solicitations, I mistakenly assumed that everyone would share my sentiments. I am glad that you questioned my reasoning, because I then realized that my sentiments were in fact not unanimous. I want to thank you for compelling me to attempt to defend my sentiments in a logical manner. It was difficult not becoming impassioned, and I am unsure if I was entirely successful at the endeavor. But thank you again for the chance to have an enlightening and civil discussion. Sincerely, Iamunknown 00:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Er...

Why do you ask? john k 23:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just kind of confusing because I go to school in Philadelphia and am probably, er, going back there in a month or so. So at first I was disoriented. john k 16:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia

Thanks for your message. My opposition is basically based on my agreement with User:AjaxSmack's position that the general U.S. city naming convention has the virtue of being a consistent guide, and that adding to the two current exceptions to that policy would lead to a slippery-slope that would result in no coherent policy at all. If what you really want to do is change the general U.S. city naming convention, then I would urge you to resume the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006). (In fact, I think that I'll add a link to this policy discussion on Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania so that the gang there can see the context).Spikebrennan 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to your further comments, I understand what you're saying, but I have not yet been convinced to change my vote.

(1) I happen to agree with the views expressed by those contributors to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) that 'city, state' is the best convention for names of U.S. city name articles, notwithstanding the well-articulated arguments presented by you and other opponents of that view. If I had participated in the Chicago discussion, I would have opposed the move. I note that the end result of the aforementioned lively discussion was no change in the 'city, state' rule-- to my mind (but not to yours, I concede), this is evidence of the virtue of the general rule. (May I ask, do you intend to propose to have this article- moving discussion with respect to other cities, or just Philadelphia? If just Philadelphia, then it makes sense to discuss the issue at Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. If you intend to follow up with other cities, then it seems to me that this is really an extension of the earlier discussion and should take place there.) (2) I really do happen to think that 'Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' is the best name for the article. There's a non-trivial number of other Philadelphias out there (including other geographic locations, the Biblical Philadelphia, the Tom Hanks film, and so on).

Apropos of nothing, I happen to work in Philly and live just outside it, so to that extent I recognize that my views on the subject seem to be at odds with most of the other Philly-based Wikipedians who have weighed in on the topic. Spikebrennan 18:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I guess I've said my peace on the subject. Spikebrennan 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I may indeed change my mind at some point--It's happened plenty of times before. Spikebrennan 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle, Washington → Seattle

There is a vote to move Seattle, Washington to Seattle. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] morons

• You wrote that I initially (initially? I haven't changed anything) implied "that behaving like moron was characteristic of those who insist on disambiguating the unambiguous" What words of mine implied that to you? --Serge 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The part where you say "let's be morons instead and insist on disambiguated titles," implies that insisting on disambiguated titles is the way to be a moron. --Dystopos 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• You wrote: The part where you say "let's be morons instead and insist on disambiguated titles," implies that insisting on disambiguated titles is the way to be a moron. Right. Note that I was commenting on behavior and choices that hypothetical people make. I was not commenting on people, and certainly not on anyone in particular. Are you contending that commenting unfavorably on any particular type of behavior is "uncivil", because that implies something unfavorable about anyone who engages or has engaged in that behavior? Isn't that going too far? --Serge 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• All I was pointing out was that you initially referred to the behavior of those who insist on disambiguated titles, and then later claimed to be referring "to all of us, not just the opposers." I am not accusing you of violating the rules of civility, just acknowledging the change in your aim. --Dystopos 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insults

Please refrain from your insults. Using newbie templates on an established editor is a calculated insult. Do not do so in future.

In addition, stop moving pages against consensus. Your contempt for your fellow editors is unbecoming. Guettarda 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

False. A person who isn't intent of engaging in personal attacks says "remember the 3rr". If used on an experienced editor it's a clear and calculated insult which says (at best) "You are too stupid to understand the rules, so I am spelling them out to you like a newbie". There is no reason to use {{3RR}} on anyone who is familiar with the rule unless you want to insult them. Please refrain from personal attacks and calculated insults in the future. Or would you prefer if I used {{NPA}} and pretended that you weren't worth the effort of typing a few words? Guettarda 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Claiming on my talk page that my actions constituted a "clear and calculated insult" is a clear violation of WP:AGF" - so, when someone insults you, you should assume good faith? If you want to talk about failure to assume good faith, you should really look at your own actions. "Just wanted to provide an official warning that if you revert again, you will be reported. Next time I won't bother" - now that is a failure to assume good faith. You are assuming that there would be a "next time". That's your idea of assuming good faith? Hilarious.

• "all I was trying to do was give you a "head's up" that I was counting the number of reverts" - and you can't do that without (a) being highly aggressive and (b) calling me stupid? Are you trying to tell me that you are incapable of saying "FYI, you're up to 3 reverts"? That is giving someone a heads up. Using a newbie template on a non-newbie and documenting the reverts - that's called being aggressive and insulting.

• "I did that in what I understood to be the standard and accepted official manner" - really? You think that insulting people is the standard manner? You think that being rude is the standard and accepted manner? Don't be ridiculous.
• "I was just following the instructions at WP:AN/3RR" - no, you were not. The page says "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a good idea to ensure that the "other side" is aware of the 3RR, especially if they are new". "Make sure" means take a couple seconds and figure out if they are new or not. If you feel you have the right to sling insults you should just do so, and not try to shelter yourself by twisting the meaning of instructions at AN3.
• "I didn't know you from Adam" - but you knew I was an admin (since you responded to a message in which I discussed the fact that the page was move-protected). In addition, I explained the difference between policy and guidelines to you. So it's clearly false to allege that you couldn't figure out whether I was a newbie or not. Even if you couldn't figure out that an admin can't be a new user, it only takes a couple seconds to figure it out. So it's blatently false to claim that you "couldn't tell" if I was a new user or not.

If you want to call me stupid, have to balls to do it and get it out of your system. Don't hide behind boilerplate to insult people. And don't say "oh, it isn't my fault, I was just following orders". In case you missed it, that defense just doesn't hold water. Guettarda 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogurt/Yoghurt

This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Serge: thank you for trying to help maintain the article name, but it's just not worth it. It'll be a war against an admin (Guettarda), and it's better to remain uninvolved. Just let the people who think they know what they're doing have their way until we call in an uninvolved administrator when the discussion on the talk page is over. —Mets501 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

Just wanted to let you know that I had actually already registered a support vote for the revised convention before you posted to my talk page. Bearcat 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. And yeah, I hope you can finally resolve this soon, too — it kind of surprises me how confrontational and unresolvable some of the US-related naming convention debates can be. (I still can't quite believe it took as long as it did to resolve the question of whether to use "United States" or "American" in categories whose conventions called for the adjectival form.) Anyway, I'll still keep an eye on the debate for a while, just in case something comes up where Canadian input might be helpful. I'm willing to let the foreign names thing go, but I do still think it's worth adding a clause to clarify cases such as American Samoa or United States Virgin Islands, in which some people might not be sure what the proper convention is (like we did for the Canadian territories.) Bearcat 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cork

While I don't think that the city of Cork is (quite) a primary topic, I do think that there are advantages of having the article at Cork, and that the disadvantages are minimal. The city of Cork is also arguably more of an encyclopedic topic than some of the other meanings (like "thing you put in the top of a wine bottle"). As I said, I'm not completely convinced either way. I'll probably change to a weak support as I think about it more, but I'm not especially convinced that anything needs to be done. john k 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I voted on this, and now you (Serge) have asked me to vote again. Where was the old vote and what was the result? If inconclusive, why are we doing this again? -- Evertype·✆ 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous vote, at Talk:Cork (material), was about moving

Cork (material) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).

There was no consensus to do that. This vote, at Talk:Cork, is about moving

Cork (disambiguation) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).

--Serge 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

I would recommend that if you wish to make a comment such as, the following, to multiple editors:

Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

then the section talk:Cork#Survey or individual talk pages would be better than under each Support or Oppose vote to make that point. Ultimately it is for the administrator who tabulates the votes and decides at the finale what each vote and ajoining comment means. A request to clarify at this point is unrequired and just a bit presumptive. Djegan 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Cork (city)" is a poor choice for a name, and ignores the existing naming convention for Irish cities. We wouldn't name an article "New York (city)". Further, the ediotr who closed the last survey wrote, "Since incoming links ...now also seem sorted out, I'll apply the 'don't fix if ain't broken principle' for now." That seems like a good approach. -Will Beback 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your not really helping the situation by you latest edits to redirect to Cork, County Cork. But if you want to self distruct thats your choice. Djegan 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(Leaving a comment here as I don't want to feed the off point discussion on Talk:Cork).

Hi Serge. Why did you go ahead and start changing links from Cork to Cork, County Cork? It's counter productive, and you're eroding your own intent. The discussion which you opened (with the intent to gain concencus before making changes) isn't complete - there is no concencus. And yet you've unilaterally started making changes anyway. You can't purport to support guidelines and policies on naming/renaming of articles in one breath, and then immediately ignore them. Relax. Guliolopez 11:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Cork is ultimately at Cork, Cork, County Cork, or anywhere else, no policies or guidelines are violated by changing Cork links now to be Cork, County Cork links, as long as Cork, County Cork redirects to Cork (which it does - no harm, no foul). However, if consensus turns out to be to move Cork, then all the current links to Cork will definitely have to change. With that in mind, I decided to investigate the size and scope of the task (especially because the amount of work has been noted as a reason to not move the article), including actually changing a few of the links (again, no harm, no foul). I did not mean to cause any consternation. What naming guidelines do you think I was ignoring? --Serge 15:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My point wasn't that you're ignoring the naming guidelines. My point was that you're ignoring the move guidelines (WP:RM), by going ahead and making changes before a concencus was agreed. I'm particularly bothered by this because you've continued to point out to other users (including me) throughout the discussion that reference to guidelines is an important part of the process. And then you go and demean all that by preempting the discussion you started and moving ahead with a rename. (You may not be renaming the original article, but you created the redirect page, then then set about changing links to the "new" page). Please tell me you understand why this might be perceived as preempting the result of the concencus discussion? Guliolopez 15:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the move guidelines either. Creating a redirect is not a violation of the move guidelines. Changing a link to point to a redirect instead of the article directly is not a violation of the move guidelines. Yes, I understand now why this might be perceived as preempting the result of the consensus discussion, but I did not see that when I was doing it, since I was not actually doing anything that would preempt the consensus discussion. But once that perception was brought to my attention, I stopped. Please tell me you understand that I did not actually ignore the move guidelines or any other guidelines in doing what I did. Thanks. --Serge 17:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you may not have ignored any documented guidelines. However, you did preempt the result of the discussion by creating the article and replacing existing links. Guidelines are not everything you know - Integrity in actions stands for something too. Speaking of which, I perceive an antagonistic tone in your note above. And so, to avoid getting into a debate which will not enhance the discussion, I'll step out of this now. (To the extent that, where I have attempted to help direct the discussion - which you started, and which I wanted to see resolved within the guidelines you laid out - you're on your own from now. No response is required. Verbum sap. Guliolopez 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ownership issue

My participation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), at least for the last few days, has been minimal. And I don't see how the comments I have made constitute "ownership issues". Are you suggesting I not participate at all? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? --Serge 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, it's a broader problem than just the last few days. I'm on your side when it comes to the naming conventions; I don't see a good reason to have them pre-disambiguated in many cases, and it causes confusion for editors and sometimes for readers as well. But by making the cynical comments, defeatist pre-judging of your loyal opposition, and interjecting heat into a debate, you may be driving away people who would otherwise support you.

I wish we had an article on Clay Chastain already here on Wikipedia, because it's something I think you could relate to...he's been fighting to get light rail here in Kansas City, Missouri for years, and it's gone on the ballot like 7 or 8 times and been defeated each time, in whatever modification he puts up there. This year, for some reason, he goes low-key with it instead of flooding the paper, and the proposal (IMO a bad one, but a light rail plan nonetheless) passed. Everyone's shocked, really, probably not least of all him. -- nae'blis 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is wise advice. David D. (Talk) 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I don't get it

See Wiktionary:burn#Transitive verb and (slang). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop with the moves

Serge, please stop with the move requests. We are obviously still discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), and it is not appropriate for you to be jumping in and moving a bunch of articles without consensus. --Elonka 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please stop with the transparent and borderline pathetic delay tactics. I am impressed by your contributions, but your position and arguments on this are disappointing. Consensus was reached several days ago and lots of people have been making moves since then. --Serge 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, is it your opinion that the phrase "transparent and borderline pathetic delay tactics" abides by the Wikipedia policy of civility? If I accused you of behavior that was "transparent and borderline pathetic," would you feel it was a courteous thing to say? --Elonka 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, I repeat, please stop with the moves. There is obvious disagreement at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), and it is not appropriate for you to be moving articles around while this matter is unsettled. You are adding to the confusion, and increasing the environment of conflict. Please stop. --Elonka 01:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, as I'm sure you're well aware, multiple good faith editors have been calling for a new poll. Even Josiah Rowe, an admin, has agreed. Please respect the process, and let's run a new and clean poll. We can continue to argue about this for days, or we can just agree on wording, open a fresh poll, and move forward. --Elonka 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have agreed that a new poll is probably the best way to calm things down on that talk page. I have not agreed with your assertion that the previous poll and subsequent discussion did not reach a consensus — I think it did, and I see nothing wrong with Serge continuing to bring pages into compliance with it. My acquiescence to a repeat poll does not constitute agreement with your position about the previous discussion, Elonka. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revised questions

FYI - the main reason I posted the revised poll questions earlier today, despite my opposition to having another poll, is to be clear that the way the questions she posed were unacceptable, and to make this clear in a specific manner as she requested. I didn't want to leave her an opening to claim "no one make any specific suggestions as I requested". Sorry if it caused any confusion, but I thought it was important to not ignore that part of what she said. --Serge 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start encouraging people to just move on from that discussion. As you've seen and stated, we're just being berated with no dialogue going on. I recommend just monitoring it and continuing along the lines of the obvious consensus that has already been generated. There's nothing to say there that hasn't already been said. All that's left is for someone to say or do something stupid enough that they get in trouble and that's not going to benefit anyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there are still a few pages left among the Lost episodes (the ones that started this mess) that are still violating the guideline for no reason. Since they're blocked and obviously controversial, someone should put in a move request at WP:RM. If I don't get to it first, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not submit any more RMs until we have consensus? --Elonka 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, from what I can tell, we already have consensus. We've had consensus for quite some time now. You saying we don't have consensus doesn't make my assertion untrue. If you had evidence of the previous poll being incorrect - like I've suggested you find - I would gladly favor a new poll. But you've not even responded to that suggestion. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Serge, based on your message to my talk page, it looks like you think that I ignored one of your messages, which was not my intention, so I'm moving the discussion here. Could you please clarify which question you wanted an answer to? Thanks. --Elonka 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It took you two days (during which you made other posts on that talk page), but you eventually responded, which I just noticed. Thanks. We can continue there. --Serge 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted updated poll wording in the new section at the bottom of the page, and would appreciate your thoughts on wording. --Elonka 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), I completely agree with you there - but that page has become so out of control that I can't even figure out where to make my opinion known! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if someone uses postal addresses as an argument in those discussions, bring up my last situation: I used to live in Guilderland, New York in Albany County, New York (paying the higher Albany County taxes) but my mailing address was Schenectady, New York which is in Schenectady County, New York! Postal addresses aren't worth a damn... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Elonka 01:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Specifically, note where it says this:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.

If you think I said anything about you that does not qualify as "civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character", please let me know what specifically I said that you feel is uncivil or involves your personal character. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would retract your accusation of personal attack on my talk page. --Serge 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been making repeated personal attacks and uncivil comments towards me over the last several days. Stating that "Elonka's mind"... is not "in the real world."[7] "Elonka's words only seem to make sense"[8] "taking rationalization to an art form", exhibiting "sour grapes delay tactics",[9] "you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole"[10]. Plus of course this recent "Is Elonka filibustering" poll [11], I realize that you and I have different opinions on this naming issue, but these repeated negative comments about my character must stop. I would appreciate if you removed your personal attacks from the Naming conventions page, and endeavored to adopt a more professional and courteous tone with me in the future. --Elonka 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)