Talk:Friend or Foe? (The Forces of Evil album)

Discussion
Why was the hatnote indicating the existence of a dab page, with a very similar name, removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs)


 * Obviously this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How exactly does the word "obviously" help? and how does directing me to the edit itself help me understand? Abtract (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Meaning that was the explanation. No use in dodging it. Abtract, if you disagree with WP:NAMB then please take it to Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But you directed me to this. How does that help me understand? And I still don't grasp your use of the word "obviously" in this context, please explain. Abtract (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, this isn't helping. Revert blindly again and you'll be in breach of 3rr. I have explained in my edit summary as to why the hat was unhelpful. Please listen to ppl when they tell you you're in the wrong. You need more people to support you on this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could answer my questions which I don't mind repeating to assist you: What does the word "obviously" contribute (and indeed the susequent use of "blindly")? and how does directing me to your rv of my first edit help? Incidentally you have now rv me twice. I will add a further question: Bearing in mind just how close "Friend or FOE?" is to "Friend or Foe" do you really think that it was wrong to include the (rather useful imho) hatnote? Abtract (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Already answered your questions. Of course it was incorrect to place the hat. Inclusively, someone who types in "friend or foe" would never have ended up at "Friend or FOE?". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

These names are so close that there is potential ambiguity imho. And I add "of course it was incorrect" to the list I need to understand how they help. In view of the fact that we disagree on the level of ambiguity I suggest that the note stays until consensus to remove it arises, as it can do no harm. I will therefore return it. Abtract (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have therefore removed it because you keep ignoring my responses. Keep in mind that I don't care if we're both blocked for edit warring. STOP NOW! And discuss. My arguement is WP:NAMB, whilst I see none coming from you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh ... wp:namb is not an argument it is a link. On the other hand, I have given a reasoned statement as to why imho the hatnote can do no harm but has the potential for good (disambiguating good). Throughout I have been the model of politeness whereas you have used the following words and phrases "obviously", "blindly", "of course it was incorrect". I would have thought, in view of our past, that you would have been on your best behaviour but apparently not as you have now rv me 3 times and no doubt if I were to add it back again, you would rv me for a damaging 4th time ... but hey I am going to save you from yourself by not provoking you. I will simply ask for help. Abtract (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

perhaps someone could assist us to resolve this minor dispute ... read above, all will be clear

My thought is that the link is appropriate. WP:NAMB is used when no one would come to this article by accident. Friend or Foe? and this article have the same name and can easily be confused and a hatnote is appropriate.  Gtstricky Talk or C 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there are three albums with the same name. Please replace the hatnote. Thank you  Gtstricky Talk or C 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean use a form of distinguish? The one Abtract proposes is unhelpful at best. Which do you have in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful is a little strong. I think it does need to go to the disambiguation page since I don't think you can get enough info into distinguish to be clear (band names, etc). But since none seem to be clear. Why not forget the template and just type it up?
 * For other albums and other articles regarding Friend or Foe see the disambiguation page for Friend or Foe
 * I am not sure I like that either but this is really a minor point.  Gtstricky Talk or C 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I will replace it. Abtract (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please say you are still watching, Gtstricky. Abtract (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you presume I'm making a WP:POINT when all I've done is place a better and more suitable hat. Gtstricky, can you please tell Abtract to not assume the worst? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly clear that, when you didn't get your own way above, you looked around for a method of getting the last word. Your petty solution was to split the page Friend or Foe into Friend or Foe and Friend or Foe? (disambiguation) ... the latter having just two entries. You then put a "better hatnote" on this page. I just don't have the energy to revert you more than once so I am hoping Gtstricky is still watching but if not I will seek help again. Abtract (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, assume good faith. You keep thinking I'm out to get you and all I'm trying to do is make things less complicated. Since there were plenty of the "Friend or Foe?"-related links I figured may as well have a new disambiguation set up, to avoid confusion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Lets all remember to assume good faith and lets do this... bring any changes here to the talk page and discuss them before making them (regarding the hat). I think you two got off on the wrong foot and you are both just trying to better (in a very small way) this article. This is more a communication issue then anything else.  Gtstricky Talk or C 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know. The point is to have fun and contribute, and I will bring up any changes to the article here. I think we can move on now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again ... I have reverted all three to the position following your last intervention; we will discuss the justification for changes here. Abtract (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch Gtstricky. I have undone Abtract's reverts per discussion here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Three times I have removed Abtract's attack comments. Calling someone a maniac is still incivil behaviour, Abtract, and I know it was reffering to me. But why do so in the first place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So now that I have eaten dinner (yes it was good), let figure this out.
 * Abstract do you have any issues with the version as it is now?  Gtstricky Talk or C 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am as curious as you Gtstricky. I created the current dab since it was more relevant than the one Abtract was proposing. Can I remove the personal attack now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * done  Gtstricky Talk or C 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I take off this one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed dinner! My objection is that Sesshomaru, when he didn't get his own way above, looked around for a method of getting the last word. What he came up with was to split the dab page the previous hatnote linked into two, namely Friend or Foe (the original page) and Friend or Foe? (disambiguation) (a new page he created). As evidence that this was simply a device to finally get his own way, note the great similarity between the two and the fact that the new page has only 2 entries (not recommended for dab pages). IMHO it is clear that he was simply making a point and getting the last word. Look through his record, you will be hard pressed to find a significant edit of his among all the petty little tweaks and reverts; look through my history and you will find I have been tireless in cleaning dab pages. This is not the first time this editor has shown that his interest is more with ego than wp, and frankly it is irritating in the extreme to be exposed to him ... I try to keep away but sadly he seems to pop up wherever I have just edited (exagerating of course but it seems like that sometimes).Abtract (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I specifically told you the reason why I created the dab and you still have the audacity to say a fib. And what is up with the countless personal attacks and stalking accusations? And the white lies. FYI, MOS:DAB does not say that two or three entries is too little for a dab page. Again, you're making stuff up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You both do a lot of editing and are bound to run into each other. You both have very different communication styles that tend to ruffle each others feathers. Calling each other liars and maniacs isn't going to help the cause. You both need to rise above this and almost be overly nice to each other to avoid this in the future. I think it is best if you avoid each other for a while but if you find each other on the same page again, take it to a talk page quick and over explain yourselves to each other. I think you will find you can each learn from each other and are probably not that philosophically different. All things considered you both have stayed fairly calm in this.

Can we all agree to leave this page alone for a while and see how we feel in a few days?  Gtstricky Talk or C 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Long as Abtract refrains from changing the hatnotes and messing up the new dab, then, I won't battle. I'm more than happy to talk to him/her but, as you've seen, that didn't help, considering the fact that the editor never listens to me and incites situations to occur. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite happy to leave it alone. Did you consider the merits of the case or will that wait till another day? Abtract (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all parties will be served by addressing the edit and not the editor. This is the second article where I've seen you being abrasive with one another. Please find a way to resolve the problem before it escalates to an uninvolved AN/I being filed on the bad behavior. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Full protection?
Is full protection still needed? I see some good attempts at solving them, maybe blocking the users who don't abide to discussion and instead edit without consensus is a better solution. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, temporary protection. Perhaps another discussion should happen here, but keep the new dabs for now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two editors should be able to solve problems easily (not as if there were six or seven editors quarreling), so I hope a week is enough. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)