User talk:CelticWonder/Archives/2010/03

Mediation note
There has been a request for Cabal mediation on a recent request for comment that you were involved in. If you would like to discuss, please see the case page. Thanks. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the notification! ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder  (T·C) " 04:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day Edit Warring
I have asked you already a number of times to discuss the issue of wearing orange on the Saint Patrick's Day article on the talk page, before continuing to add material that is poorly cited. However, you seem set on edit warring about it rather than attempting to establish consensus. You are now in danger or breaching Wikipedia policy. Please stop this, remove what you have added and respond to my points on the talk page. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * there is no evidence at all that what you are claiming is "increasingly popular". What is this based on? Unfounded claims on blogs are not satisfactory cites for an encyclopaedia.
 * Of your three cites; this one is a self published source which is not acceptable. This one is a blog, equally not acceptable, and this one is a local newspaper reporting on the afore mentioned blog.  How can you say that these are reliable sources?
 * Adding up a number of sources which you claim (but haven't produced) in order to argue that it indicates widespread significance is synthesis, which is not permissible. Do you have any single source that has actual real life examples of a significant number of significantly widespread people enacting this practice?

Mediation
Good afternoon CelticWonder. I have removed some of your comments on the Clannad Mediation. Please remember to keep cool when editing. This is an informal note, and should not count against you at all in anyway. Thank you. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)  -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Sure thing, thanks. That kitten looks delicious, btw. ;op ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Letterman relocations
I don't believe your changes can be based off the same discussions as at Talk:Leno, at least not reasonably, because the latter had a disambiguation page at the base name, rather than an article with a hatnote link to the dab. Also, the pageview stats indicate that very few users who accessed the Letterman sports article, at the primary topic, felt the need to click the hatnote to get to the dab page. It's a totally different situation than the former Leno set-up. That being said, I'm not going to lodge any objection if nobody else does (I had actually considered proposing such a move quite awhile ago, but I decided against it... because the page view stats didn't indicate David Letterman was the primary topic). Propaniac (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The page view stats (if you wanna check as I did) actually do clearly indicate David Letterman is the primary topic, in fact by roughly the same margins your argument about Jay Leno was. So the mere matter that the previous coincidental PT was essentially a dictionary article about a genre-specific word is moot, as opposed to a person who is much more likely to be PT compared with any of the other people/places (as in no historically established hierarchy) on the dab and is also colloquially known by his last name alone.  I just don't care anymore to copy all the hit tallies over into discussion, since I've concluded that WP works like a chaotic, steaming pile of inconsistency sometimes.  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 23:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, the moves have been reverted, for several reasons. First off, there does not appear to have been any discussion directly relating to this matter. Second, the discussions regarding Roger Ebert and Jay Leno highlight points that need to be considered with respect to this move as well. Third, but perhaps most important, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of articles that rely on the "letterman" link pointing to the correct article. If you feel strongly about this move, you should consider opening a discussion on the related pages. --Ckatz chat spy  00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I'm not going to do it; I don't care enough anymore to waste my time. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 00:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The main question in determining the best thing to do with Letterman is probably whether "Letterman" is more likely to refer to the sports usage or to David. But because, unlike with Leno, the sports usage was at the base name, users who searched on "Letterman" intending to find ANY usage would view the sports usage first. So if the sports article received, say, 8,000 views, and the disambiguation page received 1,000 views, that indicates that out of 8,000 users who searched for "Letterman," 7,000 of them were probably looking for the sports usage. If a majority of users felt the need to continue on to the dab page instead of staying at the sports article, that would indicate the sports article was not the primary topic.
 * Leno was different because the disambiguation page was at the base name, so users who were looking for any usage of "Leno" would have to actively select which usage they were looking for. Propaniac (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Add to this the fact that even the page view comparison as you suggested could just as easily been skewed by the equal or even more likely possibility that someone typed "Letterman" in search, didn't see "David Letterman", and then typed "David Letterman" in the search box. Yet another reason why simple hit totals shouldn't be such a weighty factor in dab-related changes (like Talk:Johnson, for example). This discussion should be taking place on the appropriate article's page, not my talk page. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)