User talk:Ego White Tray/Archive 1

Merging
Hello! I'm writing regarding your reversion of my edit. You noted that "in [your] experience, section-merge proposals are always terrible ideas, and usually not even actually merge proposals." You might be thinking of something to which the text that I inserted wasn't intended to refer (the combination of sections within a single article, perhaps). I was simply documenting the fact that the suggested destination article's merger tag (i.e. the one appearing on the page into which material from another article might be merged) sometimes goes at the top of a specific section (the one related to the other article's subject) instead of the top of the article. This is reflected in the wording of the template itself ("It has been suggested that [title] be merged into this page or section."). It's a longstanding practice that the documentation's authors (myself included) neglected to mention. —David Levy 17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The text was not at all unclear and I stand behind my earlier statement that such proposals are almost always terrible and not actually merges. Merges mean you begin with two articles and end with one, so moving a section from one article to a different one is not really merging. Perhaps a different template is in order for this. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding. This isn't about moving a section from one article to another.  It's about merging an entire article (or whatever content is retained) into a particular section of a different article.  The source article then becomes a redirect to that section (as was already documented at Merging).  We start with two articles and end with one.
 * For example, see Anatolia. It's been proposed that Names of Anatolia be merged into the Etymology section, so the merger tag appears at the top of that section.  At Names of Anatolia, the merger tag appears at the top of the page.
 * If the merger occurs, all surviving content from Names of Anatolia will be merged into Anatolia, with the former redirecting to the latter. —David Levy 05:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh... Ego White Tray (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My wording was too vague. (I didn't explain why the template would go at the top of a section.)  The new wording is clearer.  :)  —David Levy 15:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Changeing a Vote
On Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_23 you changed you're "Delete and salt" vote to "retarget". I think what you're supposed to do when you change a vote is to Strikeout the old vote (Like this: ). This let's people know at a glance that the struckout vote has been withdrawn. There's a slight chance my information is out of date, I haven't been active in a few years. I'm posting this here instead of the RFD, because this isn't relevant to this RFD discussion itself.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I thought BigNate's vote was you changing you're vote.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Blind spot (vehicle)
I see we also have Blind Spot Information System(unsourced) and Blind spot monitor(one trivial source). Isn't this 3 articles on basically the same subject? Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say make those topics a section within the blind spot page. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. Trivial and not the sort of thing I like to spend my time on, but when I run across a mess I like to tidy it up. Not in real life, of course. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Virginian
There has been a merge proposal out on The Virginian (character) since June 2011. It needs to be closed one way or the other, I think. MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's a consensus to merge. Go ahead and do it. I'd merge the novel section to the novel article and the film section to the film, personally. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Washouts
Category:Washouts, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Falling from bridges
Category:Falling from bridges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to be careful...
I saw you remove this. If you did a WP:CLEANSTART, then you were not supposed to return to the same articles/topics. If you did return to them, it's not cleanstart and you must therefore link them on Wikipedia dangerous  panda  00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't intend for it to be secret, but I also don't want it posted all over the place. If it's relevant to anything, I can live with it. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed relevant - it appears you might have had similar negative interactions with the same people using your old account. As such, not only is the linkage important at WQA, but it should be labelled properly as per WP:Alternate account  dangerous  panda  09:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the toolserver link that JClemens provided below, it's rather obvious that the supposed negative interactions don't exist. Yes, we've disagreed on several AfDs, but nothing ever got heated or personal in any of them. While I remembered seeing the username, I didn't actually remember any of these interactions at the time I posted on the civility board. I legitimately criticized JClemens comments on that talk page, and his response was to go fishing for ad hominem attacks. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Negative interactions or not, if it's not an actual WP:CLEANSTART (or a sufficiently valid reason), they need to be linked as per policy, and removing valid linking of them is inappropriate. For example, my accounts are linked.  dangerous  panda  12:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your history as ...
The fact that you've nominated a dozen or so AfD's where I disagreed with you (list) is indeed material to your bringing a WQA relating to my advice to another user at WT:AFD. Trying to dodge this history seems to me to be an attempt at a WP:SCRUTINY violation, even if unintentional and for good cause. If you don't want your history as ... known, for whatever reason, you are free to request a WP:CLEANSTART, but that would broadly prevent you from interacting at AfD in the future. I will be happy to assist you in this process, should you desire it. I hope it's clear why I believe the past identification of our mutual history of disagreement is relevant and should be visible to any observer when you bring me up at WQA, especially absent any prior discussion of the matter with me. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, none of those are relevant. Several of those cited based on your link were actually agreements, some weren't substantial disagreements (delete vs redirect, for example), and some I couldn't find one of us even commenting on. I didn't have any memory of disagreeing on AfDs when I posted about your comment and I stand behind it. My previous history is irrelevant. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to insist on deleting "..." every time I write it, you'd really be better off requesting a clean start. For example, see the logs here, which are far easier to find and more conclusive than user talk page mentions.  Again, if you have a legitimate privacy concern, you probably need to do that, rather than simply deleting text. Right now, your actions do more to stifle debate than create any actual disassociation between old and new usernames. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Hi
First of all I did not bite a newcomer, you on the other hand seem to think it is perfectly OK to bite me which is not the case. I was right about a discussion and consensus was needed, atleast a discussion was needed to establish that the merge was necessary at all. Secondly I really dont care now if it was merged or not. Third you seem to have sent me that message out of spite or just trying to get some kind of reaction. But honestly I will not give your "advice" a second thought and continue just like I have always done. Sincerely!--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict
You wrote in the summary box "edit conflict" so I'm not sure whether you meant to remove stuff from "lawsuits" as well ("She concsciously... suicide bombers' houses"), in this diff. If not, I'd appreciate it if you would put it back in.

Thanks! -- Activism  1234  16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed Ego White Tray (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Activism  1234  16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Where was the merger discussion? Loss of Kinsley gaffe talk page
As far as I can tell, the merger of the Political gaffe article with Kinsley gaffe was accomplished as a fait accompli and without any notice to any of the contributors of that article. I am not taking a position on whether there should have been a merger. But I am surprised by the method. In my experience, mergers of articles are always discussed first. I note from your talk page that this isn't the way you do it. See Merging. This should have been discussed first before the merger

If there was anything on the Kinsley gaffe talk page, you've lost it now. The redirect simply comes to the Political Gaffe Talk page. "There is neither history of content" "There is neither history nor content" This was badly done. it needs to be corrected by you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Be bold applies here, and a little flavor of ignore all rules. It seemed like such an obvious thing to do that I just did it. I was searching Google for content to use to improve the political gaffe article, make it more than a list, and one of the first Google results was Kinsley gaffe, which was neither linked to nor even mentioned in the political gaffe article. The Kinsley gaffe article, it turns out, had exactly the content I was looking to add to political gaffe (namely that some gaffes reveal what politicians really think.) As far as I know, there is no explicit requirement to discuss anything first, except for most (but not even all) deletions. You should never revert or demand someone undo something unless you actually disagree with the action - lack of discussion alone is never reason to undo an edit.
 * You second paragraph confuses me. The Kinsley gaffe talk page is at Talk:Kinsley gaffe, as anyone would naturally expect, and I created it when I placed the merged-to tag (there was no talk page before that). I have no idea what you mean when you say it's "lost". There are no redirects to the Political Gaffe talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Political_gaffe). "There is neither history of content" "There is neither history nor content" doesn't even make any sense. The history is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kinsley_gaffe&action=history and the content has been moved to political gaffe. Since none of your claims that the merge was badly done make any sense to me, I will not correct anything until I understand what to correct. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not demanding that you do anything, other than put in the history (at least) of the talk page (and it still has evaporated, as far as I can see). Nor did I revert or undo. If you are correct that there was no talk page at Kinsley Gaffe, then I withdraw the request. No harm, no foul.
 * I clicked on your redirect to the talk page, and all I get is the Political Gaffe talk page. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up my typographical error. "There is neither history of content" "There is neither history nor content" is the way that should read. Sorry about that. If there was no talk page, then see above.
 * I thought that as the primary contributor to Kinsley Gaffe I should have been informed before the merger. Of course, since this is the only substance in the Political gaffe article, I am not surprised (but am also flattered) that you would decide it was 'just what your new article needed.'
 * While your merger was admirably bold, it crossed the practical line. Mergers should always be discussed before the merger. That's the way it is done in practice. See Merging and.
 * Apparently there is nothing for you to correct. But I respectfully suggest that other known editors deserve a say on whether articles should be moved or merged. A radical operation should at least be discussed with the family; otherwise other editors will misinterpret your actions as arrogance.
 * Of course, I WP:AGF. But seduction is always preferable to the alternatives. Process and the implicit respect it entails is important in a project where we are all volunteers. What was the hurry or overriding consideration? Is this just an Ipse dixit?
 * Indeed, bottom line, merging these was probably an OK thing to do. But an amendment of future behavior is something I recommend to you.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move? I added this discussion to the talk page at Political gaffe. FYI. Suggest that we continue if there, if there is anything to add. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslims
Ego White Tray,

I invite you to see my comments about your addition to Innocence of Muslims at the [Talk page] --Nbauman (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See also sections on category pages
I saw you post at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and added a reply about Category see also. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style commentary articles
Hi, I posted on the talk page for Gangnam Style a link to another article, I think it was referred to by another paper, anyway, it has more analysis on the economics of Gangnam district that might be useful to include. AngusWOOF (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles poll option
Hello Ego White Tray. I saw that you added a new option to the Beatles poll, "support having no standard". I think it's fine to discuss having no standard, but putting it directly below the sections for "support lower case" and "support upper case" is not a good idea, because it makes it look like it is a part of the poll text that was worked out during the mediation, when this is not in fact the case. It is also not so meaningful to compare the numbers between your option and upper/lower case, because your option was added much later. Instead of putting it at the top of the poll, would you mind starting a new section about it at the bottom, in the discussion area? That way it will be clearer to other editors and the closing admin that it was added to the poll later. I'll remove the section from the top of the poll now. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see Feezo got there before me. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 22:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Conversion therapy, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you.  Alex J Fox  (Talk)(Contribs) 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Washington Initiative 502 (2011) Move
I noticed that you completely moved the article Washington Initiative 502 (2011) to the former redirect Washington Initiative 502 on the grounds that there was no other Washington Initiative 502. While this is correct for this article this year, it is not uncommon for referenda or initiative numbers to be re-used in other states and it has been the custom on Wikipedia for many years now to reference Washington ballot measures to include the year they are filed, as a quick check of the "Elections in Washington" infobox on the article shows. If you could please return the main article to Washington Initiative 502 (2011) I would be most appreciative. Thank you. Rorybowman (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But why are the years included? Has there been a discussion or consensus on this? Wikipedia's overall disambiguation policy is completely clear that disambiguators are only added when actually needed, so on that policy, there would be no 2011 in the title. Show me that I'm wrong and I'll switch it back. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "wrong" is the word I would use, but "inconsistent." The convention of including measure numbers for initiatives and referenda predates me, so I've tried to honor it. I know that both Oregon and California re-use initiative numbers, making this crucial, but including the year of filing in article titles has been standard for Washington ballot measures for a few years now. This might be an excellent discussion to have elsewhere, but removing the year for one article breaks the pattern, which becomes quite useful when tracking an issue over time, as with I-502 this year (about marijuana reform), referendum 74 (on "marriage equality") or I-1240 (on charter schools). It seems more logical to me, and in accordance with past convention, to retain the filing year (which is how the Secretary of State groups ballot measures) for all ballot measures, rather than eliminate it for some without discussion. I personally like having the year in the title, but see the broader WP issue for similar articles (about Washington ballot measures) as one of consistency. Does that make sense? I'm not certain where to begin the discussion about where the convention came from or whether it should be maintained? Perhaps in one of the Washington state WikiProjects? Rorybowman (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at articles about California, Colorado and Oregon ballot measures, I see that the convention is quite consistent: parenthetical years are the norm for ballot measures, and have been for quite some time. Rorybowman (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States. Rorybowman (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello, Ego White Tray. When you moved District 8 to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
 * A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.
 * Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "District 8" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm, it doesn't seem to be a problem. The three linking pages are this page, an IP user talk page, and a list of required Northern Marianas island articles to create that had the wrong link in the first place. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * most likely, someone else fixed the links that existed earlier today. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Playhouse Disney merges
Thanks. I've merged these articles after your suggest.-- John Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 00:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Effort to merge Washington Initiative 957 (2007) out of existence
The article needs improvement, yes. But all discussions about deleting the article have resulted in a decision to keep. I question the effort to conduct what amounts to a back door deletion. Let's discuss the matter on the article's talk page before proceeding any further. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitt listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mitt. Since you had some involvement with the Mitt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Coppaar ( talk ) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6
You recently participated in a discussion at WP:AN that has now produced a new section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Thanks for your earlier comments, and I hope you might also participate in this new discussion. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

All the World's Mornings
Hi, yes it was a mistake on my part to forget to move the novel article to the simpler name. Sorry about that. I noticed that once the disambiguation page goes the name had to be changed but somehow overlooked it. I think the link to move the article would've worked has I used it. Anyway, I remember next time I come across a CSD G6 article. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Talk  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Repost of Bloviating ignoramus
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I saw your note on the talk page of Bloviating ignoramus and I understand your reasoning. It wasn't out of line of you at all.  But I'm quite sure the WP community would agree that we don't need a redirect for any time someone (albeit notably) calls someone a name, you know?  Especially when it could be seen as an attack.  I doubt anyone's going to search that term hoping to find the page on Trump.  Anyway, hope this is ok with you, if not we can discuss.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  06:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine and dandy and I can live with it, but it was first deleted as G8, dependent on non-existant page. Then is was deleted as G4, recreation after deletion discussion, but there never was discussion. So, this page has now been deleted for incompletely invalid reasons twice. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, well that's reasonable of you to call attention to the fact that you thought the deletions were out of line. Glad we're cool then.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  00:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard about this already?
Hi Ego White Tray. If not, may I introduce Ego Leonard? And ps: Ego Is Not a Dirty Word. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)