User talk:KickahaOta/Archive

This page is an archive, automatically maintained by Werdnabot.

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!

--WillMak050389 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am always glad to greet new users, and if you have any problems I will always be here to help. --WillMak050389 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice username.
--SB | T 07:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent guess, and thank you for the pointer to the interesting article, but wrong nonetheless. :) Kickaha Ota 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RE: 3O
Thank you for taking the time to render your 3rd opinion on the Jaguar XK link dispute. --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Kickaha Ota 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry that things got so messy there for you, and that there is now the question of 3RR. As I mentioned at the noticeboard, however, I am convinced that the editor in question was spamming the link. He seemed quite intent on promoting it, and it was an inappropriate link - the definition of spam vandalism. As such, I believe your edits were to remove simple vandalism, which doesn't count towards 3RR. I hope that the admins agree, and that your "record" remains spotless. Please let me know if there's anything I can do --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel bad about the whole incident, but it seems to have been settled. Thank you very much for the kind words. Kickaha Ota 19:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They were well deserved, your edits in this matter have been nothing but good-faith. Take care --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
Thanks for bringing a sense of neutrality to that nearly unbearable page. Regarding the edit I marked as minor, I didn't see it as major because all I did was move the three references from the first sentence of the intro to the bottom of the intro. Then, I did what you had suggested on the talk page: mention that those references describe the fact that some believe ACIM is authored by satan. I suppose it was the fact that you had mentioned this already on the talk page that made me consider it a non-major edit. And it is certainly the case that I wasn't trying to slip anything by anyone. How could I, seeing that you had already mentioned this topic in the talk page, and the article about satan as a potential source was already available on the page long before I moved it? -- Andrew Parodi 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

re WP:30
Thanks for your attention. Intangible 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Authorship of A Course In Miracles
Thank you for pledging to call him/her on it when he/she makes unfounded accusations with regard to my interest in those articles. I sincerely did not view it as a personal attack that he/she has too much free time. I'd remove it if I could, but I fear that to remove that statement at this point would only lead to more accusations of me "tampering" with things. -- Andrew Parodi 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories, etc.
Hi there. Just so you know, if you want to reference a Category without placing the page into said Category, you can place a colon after the square brackets and before the word "Category", like this: Category:User Wikipedia, which displays as Category:User Wikipedia. You can do the same thing too images to prevent them from displaying, eg. Image:WikiThanks.png displays as Image:WikiThanks.png. Happy wiki-ing, --Rockero 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the tip! It's appreciated. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is all you needed to know?
If there is some secret connection between WP and ACIM then I will be more than happy to butt out of this article. Ste4k 17:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I needed to know whether you were willing to put aside your grievances and try to work out a way to make productive changes to the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article. Unfortunately, based on your responses, it appears that you're still too preoccupied with your past grievances for any sort of amicable resolution of the current problem to work. So all I can do is step back and let the process take its course. I have no idea why you think there's some secret connection between WP and ACIM, or why I would be privy to it if there were one, or why you think this issue is relevant to my questions in the first place. Sorry about that. Kickaha Ota 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that if this problem went to arbitration that I would end up blocked from the articles. You did not mention anything regarding him. What possible reason am I unaware of that would account for arbitrators to allow for his abuse and block me from making edits that were supported directly by policy? Ste4k 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention him because I was talking to you, not to him. Kickaha Ota 18:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What you said was: "This article has been nominated for deletion. That nomination failed. It was then nominated again. That nomination is in the process of failing again. It seems fairly obvious that the article is going to stick around, regardless of your opinion.". Did you intend to insinuate that I had bad faith about this article? It was not me that nominated the article either of the previous times. And the manner in which you express this, to me says that you consider my opinion unimportant. Is that what you had intended? You repeat it again here as you predict the outcome of arbitration saying, "which will probably wind up in an arbitration that will probably wind up with you getting blocked from the articles." Well thank you for your opinion. It took me nearly a week to get a firm grip on policy and how it relates to guidlines, and so forth. If they are only a bunch of words that don't mean anything, though, then who cares? What a waste of time this was. Ste4k 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I most certainly did not say--or imply, or even secretly believe--that you had bad faith about the article. You obviously have a sincere, heartfelt opinion that the subject of the article is not notable and should be deleted. Nor did I say--or imply, or even secretly believe--that your opinion is not important. But Wikipedia is a product of consensus; there are other people with opinions of their own, and their opinions are also important. And if your belief that an article should be deleted does not reflect consensus, then it will not be carried out, no matter how heartfelt or sincere it is. It is simply impossible for a project like Wikipedia to fully and completely reflect the opinions of all of its contributors, especially when it comes to what material should be included in the first place. If one person deeply and sincerely believes that an article should exist, and one person deeply and sincerely believes that it should not, then someone has to lose; the article cannot simultaneously exist and not exist. And on Wikipedia, ties are broken in favor of inclusion; that's why a result of "No consensus" in a debate on deletion means that the article is kept. That's simply the way the project has been set up. And as far as my predictions about the outcome of an arbitration go, I'm not saying that I wish for that to happen; it's simply my prediction of a likely outcome. And if and when an arbitration does occur, I will have no vote and no particular say in the outcome; so my prediction has no force whatsoever. I very much hope that you can find a way to resolve the dispute and avoid arbitration altogether; I would encourage you to take part in formal mediation, where your dispute will be heard by a skilled mediator who's much more familiar with Wikipedia than I am and who can help you solve the problem. If you feel frustrated by your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, then I would also highly encourage you to contact the Association of Members' Advocates, a group of volunteers who will help you navigate the process and achieve your goals. Kickaha Ota 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?
-- Note from Kickaha Ota to those viewing this page: The following comment from me was left on user JzG's talk page.

I noticed that you added another proposed issue to the RfM for The Great Authorship of A Course in Miracles Kerfluffle. It's a worthwhile issue, but is it appropriate to modify an RfM after the parties have already agreed to it? It certainly seems appropriate to suggest additional issues to the parties involved, but actually modifying the RfM at that point seems like something that might best be left to the parties and the mediator. (And I admit to being a bit surprised that the parties agreed to the RfM as it was. :) ) Kickaha Ota 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want you to know, that I have only been here maybe two weeks. I can easily forgive not signing a message, but deliberately starting an argument with me about topics I did not wish to discuss, and then point out the conversation afterwards to whomever which simply invited more hateful tripe from Andrew; it was rude, it upset me, it affected my real life. I am not as young as you perhaps, but I can respect my youngers, and in the position that you had assumed to be filling, there was no excuse for what you did. And now I read above that you consider this some sort of game. How the heck am I supposed to know anything about RfM?!? While you were pestering me with all of that you had planned, I was working on what had been agreed on trying to ignore for at least a full day anything to do with ACIM. Ste4k 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly apologize if I upset you. Can you please explain in more detail why you feel this way? Let me clear up a few things.
 * I was not trying to conceal anything by not signing the RfM notification. If I were trying to conceal my involvement, I would not use my own account, and I would not prominently put my name in the RfM's text.
 * I don't understand what you mean by conceal something. What I mean to say, is that from my perspective, you have been here quite a bit longer than I have. You know about things that I haven't even the foggiest idea exist. You know about RFM and all of those things and what you say above makes me feel like signing now was foolish and I don't even know why.
 * Ste4k, you can look at my contribution history and see that we started at pretty much the same time. I am a n00b; my userpage says so. We're both inexperienced with this. Neither one of us has had a chance to fully read Wikipedia policies yet, so each of us is going to be more knowledgeable than the other on certain policies, just because they're the ones we happen to have read or been pointed to. Both of us are very unfamiliar with working with other people to edit an encyclopedia. Each of us needs to work very hard to remember that newcomers make mistakes, and that things that newcomers say that don't seem right are almost always due to ignorance or inexperience rather than malice. I have failed several times to remember that during our discussions, and I apologize for that. Kickaha Ota 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not deliberately start an argument; I tried to solve an argument already in progress. You filed a Third Opinion request. I provided a third opinion, as you requested. You filed a Request for Comment. I provided comments. For you to twice ask for outside comments regarding this issue, then accuse me of "starting an argument" after responding to your requests, confuses me greatly.
 * If you "did not wish to discuss" the topics involved in the dispute, then your filing of a Third Opinion request and a Request for Comments is very puzzling.
 * I was working on an article that had been discussed in AfD. I had proposed it to be deleted, and it was decided that it was to be merged. I am trying my best to clean up all of this mess in this category. I merged the article and began looking for resources, in the meantime, Andrew had created more files in the category. I was trying as agreed upon to step away from the problem and chill out, be constructive and get some work done on the category. Please see Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Renard.
 * Okay, now I understand in more detail where you're coming from, and that's good. But still, when you ask for third parties' comments on a problem, you need to expect that third parties will provide comments on the problem, and that they won't necessarily agree with your own. That doesn't mean that you're wrong; it means that different people can see a problem in different ways, come to different conclusions, and all be perfectly justified in reaching those conclusions. That's particularly true with anything even remotely touching on religion or philosophy. Kickaha Ota 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not consider this "any sort of game". I stated an honest opinion -- that after seeing the depth of the ill feelings that seem to be involved here, I was somewhat surprised that both you and Andrew Parodi agreed to the mediation process. I should have said "pleasantly surprised," because I was.
 * If you feel that my attempts to resolve the dispute were "pestering", again, I apologize. Again, I can only point out that you asked for outside comments, and that in fact, you did so twice.
 * I had no idea that you were unfamiliar with Requests for Mediation. Since you had initiated both a Third Opinion request and a Request for Comment, I assumed that you were familiar with the dispute resolution process. And since you are apparently not familiar with Requests for Mediation, my attempts to steer you to the Association of Members' Advocates seems all the more appropriate in hindsight, since one of their main purposes is to help you become familiar with the process. Kickaha Ota 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll make this real clear. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. I do not play games. I read literally. I do not want any ill feelings between you and me. But I think that you should be much more careful about what your statements imply sometimes. I read the documentation. I try my best to follow what it says to do. I still do not know how severe one should complain, on what topics, nor to whom. It's just a good guess on my part and according to what the documentation says. On one side I see my name being dragged through the mud, the text in my nominations being changed, and my gender purposely being demeaned. And then I am being called someone without AGF. me? So when you say you were surprised that we agreed, it makes no sense to me. I feel like maybe I have been duped. I do not like to play games. If you already know that this course of action is senseless for some reason, then you should be honest and plain and state so. There are TWO issues here. One which I am ignoring, and the other which I am doing my best to concentrate on. Do you understand that? I spoke to you earlier in confidence that it was between me and you. I know that there isn't any privacy here, but calling attention to that conversation, to me, showed bias from you. So later when I read that you are even pleasently surprised, I am thinking again there will be some bias here. But, let me point out to you that I do not think that you read my words carefully. I write very specifically. Your final comments in the closed AfD for that article state that I am in the incorrect venue to be debating what should be content in the article. If you read carefully what I actually said, I said that the whole idea of this court case being "famous" is simply hogwash. There is nothing, nobody, anywhere, that has heard anything about it. And if we are printing that story, we are actually creating fiction about it, urban legend. That is the effect of original research. Try looking up the brand name "ACIM" on Google and read what you see on the first page. Okay? Your following comments is that it is notable. So, I must therefore ask you why? Thanks. Ste4k 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read always read literally, then I'm afraid you are going to find yourself in a great many conflicts that aren't necessary. People in the real world very often don't speak literally. They leave things out because they make assumptions (which may turn out to be wrong) about what other people are aware of or find interesting. They use slang expressions and specialized terms that aren't meant in their literal way. They use jokes or sarcasm to try to change the subject or defuse tension. (Of course, some people also use jokes or sarcasm to cause tension, but neither of us are doing that.) They may simply misspeak, especially when they're pressed for time, emotional, or not paying close attention. If you assume that people always speak literally, especially in an informal setting, then you are very often going to misinterpret people. Wikipedia is no different, especially on article and user talk pages, which can be very informal. There are policies to reduce conflicts (like "No personal attacks", which if you recall I brought up very strongly against Andrew, and refused to accept his excuses). But there is no policy or requirement that people always speak literally, or that they don't joke, or that they always fully explain anything that might be unclear. (Heck, if people tried to talk so precisely that there was no room for any misinterpretation, the resulting comments would probably be so long that we'd all need high-speed Internet connections to read the talk pages.) That's why, if someone says something that seems to suggest an insult or an ulterior motive, it's so important to ask rather than assuming the worst.
 * Again, when I said that I was surprised that you and Andrew agreed, it was not meant in any way to imply bad faith on your part (or Andrew's part, for that matter). Unfortunately, people with deeply-felt disputes often can't resolve them amicably, and sometimes don't even want to resolve them amicably.  Heck, look at the archives for the Request for Mediation page; a very large percentage, if not a majority, of mediation requests wind up rejected at the outset because one side or the other, or both, didn't think it would be possible to mediate the conflict, or simply didn't want to mediate the conflict. Even when both parties are sincere, sometimes they simply can't make it past their differences. So when I said that I was surprised that the two of you accepted, I wasn't intending to slight either of you; it was simply a reflection of the fact that mediations often fail. If I wasn't clear about that, it was because I was posting to an administrator's talk page, and I assumed that the administrator would understand what I had in mind. I forgot that other people might be watching the page, and that they might not see the remark in the same way that an administrator would; and I apologize for that.
 * Talk pages are not private, and my pointing out that conversation doesn't seem to me to be inappropriate. I do apologize for my tone in pointing it out, though; it resembled a judge reading a verdict far more than one user commenting on an equal user's remarks, and that was uncalled-for.
 * accepted Ste4k 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And to explain my comments on the AfD a bit further: The consensus seems to be that the Course itself is notable; "A Course in Miracles" gets about 637,000 Google hits, a quite respectable number. And if the text of a notable work hints that it is the words of such a notable religious figure as Jesus, then a discussion of that claim seems to be an indispensible part of a proper encyclopedic discussion of the Course. I can certainly understand your point of view that the Course itself is not notable and that this aspect of it is particularly not notable; but again, different people with different perspectives can come to different conclusions about the same article and both be justified. Kickaha Ota 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding Google hits, they are meaningless. Please see remarks to that regard in Afd on Next Door Nikki. If Andrew really works hard on this, merges all the information rather than spreading it, he may just be able to find enough valid secondary sources to present a page that people can understand. Ste4k 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia mediation
Thanks for the response. Just to let you know, I have indeed agreed to the mediation, but I have subsequently decided to leave Wikipedia. As soon as this issue with that editor (Ste4k, or whatever his name is) is settled, someone else just as obnoxious will come along. It's happened before and it will happen again. Plus, I am back in school and I have a number of other writing projects I should be working on. Wikipedia is a distraction for me lately. But thank you for helping with this ugly situation. -- Andrew Parodi 21:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a shame, but if Wikipedia is causing you more grief than satisfaction, or if it's hurting the rest of your life, then by all means take a break. Best of luck to you. Kickaha Ota 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yes, I've decided to leave. Wikipedia has caused me stress from the beginning. I have continually been told about the good aspects of this place, and that I should stick around for them, and I have seen some of the good aspects, but it seems that the annoyances override the good experiences for me. In thinking it over, I realize that I don't agree with the very basis of Wikipedia. I agree that a huge problem exists where consensus comes in over credentials, and I don't think it's really trustworthy to have a site that anyone can edit. I think that this will just lead to endless fighting, such as what we have just experiences. I see it all to often on Wikipedia, and I find it counter productive. But thank you for helping for a bit there. Take care, 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ste4k": I accidentally clicked on this page in my watchlist, and the red-on-black color scheme blinded me. A trained parrot is typing this for me, which is very inconvenient, because the parrot only understands Spanish and my Spanish is quite poor. Please send replacement eyeballs. :) Kickaha Ota 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * O^O
 * O^O

Ste4k 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, but it doesn't line up well on the main screen. It's more of an in-the-box discussion thing. Ste4k 06:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Ste4k 14:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's entertainment. Kickaha Ota 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Love your username

 * Hi. Just stopping by based on your username. Big fan of Philip José Farmer and the World of Tiers series in particular (though I was very dissapointed with his years later follow-up, More Than Fire). If you remember, in one of the book's introductions (can't remember which--Behind the Walls of Terra?) he said he would be writing a sequel, Kickaha's world. Looks like that will never happen.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I ass-umed. Fairly unusual name.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I was flattered, actually. :) Kickaha Ota 23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Award!
((barnstar moved to user page by KickahaOta)) Renata 05:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC) }}
 * Joy! *grabs shiny metal object, flees* Kickaha Ota 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AFC
On the AFC submission "Cabinet Satellite Intelligence Center (CSICE)" you stated that an article needs at least one English source. I don't agree entirely with that statement. Sources in other languages are acceptable too. It would probably have been a good idea to see if a Japanese Wikipedian could help out in determining if that was a suitable entry. - Mgm|(talk) 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. I'll remove my decline and flag it for further review. Kickaha Ota 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, great work at AFC. You reviewed almost an entire page of submissions. Of course a mistake can slip through. I usually try to find sources for stuff that appears to be notable, but I would understand if you don't have the time to do that. Where do the AFD-like closure boxes come from? Or more specifically how do you get the "do not alter anymore" instead of just a regular box? - Mgm|(talk) 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the revised "Creating an article from a submission" instructions on the right side of the Articles for creation page. They tell you about the  and  templates that are used to create the boxes, and link to a list of other AfC templates for marking articles as accepted, unsourced, not notable, stark raving mad, and so on. Kickaha Ota 16:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AfC for deleting articles
On your AfD for Polyamory you noted: I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for an AfC reviewer to take advantage of the opportunity to get first licks in on the merits of the nomination while creating the page, so I decided that I won't do it when processing AfCs (though other reviewers may reasonably choose to comment). I thought I'd weigh in a bit on that. Remember that AfC is "Articles for Creation" and it is not appropriate for that forum to be used as a proxy for deletion. Therefore, not only is it appropriate for you to take "first licks", it is imparative that you do so. Thanks for all your hard work. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what I'm saying is that requests for deletion, editting, or anything other than creating pages in the article namespace should be declined. If you agree with the deletion request, feel free to send it to prod or AFD, but do so only for yourself and not on behalf of an anon from AFC.  The reason for this is that banned users might use this as a "loophole" and use AFC editors as a proxy for their mischief.  That's trouble none of us need.   Thanks again for all your hard work. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the AfC and AfD processes are intersecting in an unfortunate way here, and I'm going to start a discussion on that in the AfC and/or AfD talk pages right now. The problem is this: On the one hand, a large part of me agrees with you that AfC reviewers should be able to decline obviously-wrongheaded AfD requests, just like they can decline obviously-wrongheaded articles of any other sort.  But on the other hand, AfC reviewers aren't admins; they're just ordinary schmucks.  If I decline an AfD request, I'm essentially doing a "close and speedy keep" on the AfD without ever even starting one, which is something that only an admin should normally do.  And more to the point, by the time the AfC request is filed, the user has already added the AfD notice to the page (something that an anonymous user can do, just like any other edit).  So in order to meaningfully decline the AfD request, I'd have to go and remove the AfD notice from the page -- something that would be blatantly inappropriate for a non-admin to do.  So, under the current policies, I think that simply creating the AfD page so the process can proceed to its speedy-keep conclusion is the best thing that the AfC reviewer can do.  But I think we may want to revise the policy in this regard -- perhaps by having a separate mechanism for anonymous users to initiate AfDs, or perhaps by having the AfC reviewer call for administrator intervention.  Like I say, I'll start the discussion. Kickaha Ota 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the user can just register for an account. While there might be a myriad of reasons why a user might not want to log in to create a page, there is no concievable reason why an anon needs to nominate one for deletion.  It is not inappropriate to say simply that an AfD request is inappropriate on AfC and if the user wishes to nominate an article for deletion, then they can by creating an account.   Just because there is a request on AfC, no one is at all obligated to do it.   Remember that you should not do anything through AfC that you wouldn't do yourself without the request.  That especially includes AfDs.  If you don't support the AfD, you should not nominate it.  Its that simple. (BTW -- admins are just ordinary schmucks too.  They have no more rights than anyone else on here, just a few more commands.) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia policies and procedures are ignored for the moment, I agree with you that that's what I would have done. But again, the article's page already had the AfD tag on it, placed by the anonymous user. That AfD tag doesn't state the author's reasoning for the nomination; that's only stated in the AfC request.  So if I simply say "Sorry, but I don't agree with your reasoning" and close the AfC request without taking further action, I'm leaving the half-created, reasonless AfD -- a confusing situation, and one that seems likely to take longer to resolve than just creating the page and letting the process advance towards its speedy-keep conclusion. And if I remove the AfD tag from the article page, there's at least a very strong argument to be made that I'm violating Wikipedia policy -- the tag must not be removed until the discussion is closed, and normally only admins close discussions (let alone decide that discussions should not take place in the first place).  If the AfC reviewer has the power to "close the discussion", that's exactly the sort of thing that should be clarified in policy, in order to avoid appeals and flamewars and general unpleasantness. In any case, I've now opened up the topic on the AfD talk page, so we can get some consensus on this. Kickaha Ota 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember -- doing nothing is always an option. And declining anything in AfC isn't final -- any editor has the option to override anyone's decline.  Because of this, I disapprove of the "please don't edit" clause in the new box. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the other reviewers are smart enough to know that they can simply remove the "completed" box. The "please do not edit" was intended to solve the problem of anonymous submitters making corrections to their already-declined articles, which would go completely unnoticed by the reviewers.  I had suggested asking reviewers to add  instead, but folks thought that having them start a new submission would be simpler.  And yes, doing nothing in response to an AfC request is an option (and a frequently-exercised option :) ), but it still leaves the half-created AfD. Kickaha Ota 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what the intent of the clause was. However, I think that the phrasing is ambiguous enough that it applies to all users.  The subtext of the box tells submitters what to do and doesn't give the same impression of finality to other reviwers.    Its best to leave it off. Also, regarding the AfD request put on that page:  I believe that that is irrelevant to this discussion.  What that user has done on the article page has no bearing or weight on what we do on AfC.  There is a bot that looks for AfD "orphans" and deals with them appropriately.  It is my belief that the proper course of action is to decline AfD requests on the AfC page and let the AfD process deal with orphans in their own way.  There is no policy or procedure issue here at all.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work
Thank you for the valuable discussion today. Even though you claim to be a "n00b", its obvious that you have the right spirit and the right attitude toward Wikipedia. I, for one, certainly appreciate that. Even though we've differed on a number of issues, its obvious to me that you have exactly what we are often times sorely lacking -- a sane voice in shouting on behalf of the users above the clamor of self-motivated interests. Please remember that even though you and I differ on a few piddly points, you've earned my respect and am happy you are here and contributing so well. Please don't burn out though. I've been around for a long time (comparatively) and I've seen a lot of people who shine really brightly at first and burn out just as fast. If you ever start to feel any strain, please take a Wikibreak and come back refreshed. To me, that's a much better alternative than to have you leave and never come back. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very kind; thank you very much. Your points are very cogent and well-presented, and you've convinced me that forbidding anonymous AfDs is the simplest and best way to go. My activity level (in all sorts of activities) tends to surge and recede over time, so I try to be as productive as I can be while I'm interested, and to scale back or take a break when my interests wane. I don't expect Wikipedia to be too different in that regard. I'll try to pace myself. Kickaha Ota 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

John Shillito Company
Hi, yeah the info was copyright from. hope that clears it up. GizzaChat  &#169; 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think it's borderline, but I can certainly see the strong parallels in the text. I've copyvio'ed out the article and written a replacement stub version. Kickaha Ota 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter Craven
I've done a rewrite now, but when you started this article for AFC, it was a copyright violation of the linked fansites. Not sure if that was a mistake due to taking on too many requests in one go, or some other reason, but here's just a quick reminder to make sure it doesn't happen again. :) - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Gah! Thanks for the catch! Kickaha Ota 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

opex article rejected
Hi

if you have ever written a check, like hundreds of millions of people do every day, then an OPEX machine probably processed it when it was sent to a bank.

but thanks to you, OPEX does not show up on wikipedia, at all.

however, tons of obscure and tedious characters from video games have several pages devoted to them.

congratulations in further divorcing wikipedia from something called 'real life'.

thats sarcasm by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.245.163.1 (talk • contribs).


 * Thank you for your comments. AfC reviewers are required to make their best judgment call based on the available evidence. Inevitably, reasonable minds can and often do differ on these judgments.  Anonymous authors who are dissatisfied with the AfC process can bypass that process by signing up for an account and creating articles themselves. Kickaha Ota 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

afc top
Hi. I reverted your last edit to afc top. I'm not sure what it was supposed to do, but it broke the template whenever it is not substituted (and not in an elegant way). Even though the template should be subst'd, it should, as other top templates do, work even when hasn't been. ×Meegs 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! Currently, even when the template is subst'ed, the #ifeq stuff for the optional parameter winds up included in the target page, increasing server load. I was implementing delayed substitution as described on the Help:Substitution page, which causes the #ifeq stuff to actually be evaluated (rather than just included on the page) when the template is used, reducing server load and reducing the size of the code on the page. But as you say, it only works when the template is subst'ed. Thanks for reverting for now; I'll see if I can find a better way. Kickaha Ota 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AfC templates
I've just replied on my talk page. Sorry for being so slow to respond, but I suddenly lost my internet connection for a couple of minutes. --Zoz (t) 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k RfC
FYI: Requests for comment/Ste4k. -Will Beback 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice. Comments left. Kickaha Ota 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
Kick- Your edits appear to be motivated by your beliefs. I hope that you have done your civic and military duty and defended you right to impose your views on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.10.59 (talk • contribs)


 * I find your criticism somewhat ironic, given the fact that I would have no idea what edits you were talking about if it weren't for the fact that four of the five contributions from your IP have been to one article, James Risen. I think that the edit history of that article, and my history of other edits to this project, speak for themselves. Kickaha Ota 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am talking about the pattern of all of you edits on Wiki, not just on James Risen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.10.59 (talk • contribs)


 * Here is my editing history for the article namespace. If you believe that there is any sort of POV pattern to those edits, then by all means file a disciplinary request against me, because I certainly don't see it, so I will apparently need administrator intervention to teach me the error of my ways. P.S. If you're going to attempt to convince others of the errors of their Wikipedia ways, it would make you appear more credible if you at least bothered to sign your talk-page comments and provide edit summaries for your edits. Kickaha Ota 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed
I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on my filing requesting arbitration.
Please see your comments made earlier on my filing requesting arbitration. Please also see my remarks to Will Beback concerning that matter on my talk page. . Your statements appear to me to be an attempt to obstruct and/or divert attention away from a legitmate complaint. I am certain that this is not how you intended them to appear. Please feel free to contact me in that regard on my talk page. Thanks. Ste4k 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. That was certainly not my intent, and I don't see how it could reasonably be perceived that way. My statement was very clear -- that the particular grievance you were making was a part of a larger problem, and that all aspects of that larger problem needed attention. That's not "divert[ing] attention away from a legitimate complaint"; that's looking at the entire problem. Kickaha Ota 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

AfC
Thanks for the reminder about signing my entries - I should have known that! Do you think it's worth my going back and signing all the ones I processed today and didn't sign? Brian 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Nah. Anons usually don't have questions, and if other editors want to ask you things they'll check the page history. Kickaha Ota 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions and a suggestion
Hi, I started going back through the old AfC and noticed that there are a lot that haven't been resolved. Some are easy as they can be quickly declined. Many are more difficult - they are probably valid articles but need some research to make sure they're not copyvio, already existing etc. Thanks for your help! (and thanks again for the barnstar - that made my day). Brian 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * 1) The question: In your opinion, is it more useful for me to go through the old afc entries and quicly decline those that are obvious or more useful to do the slower work of deciding on the questionable articles and turning them into articles, if appropriate. I can do either, but I can spot the obvious "declines" pretty quickly...
 * 2) A suggestion. It might be useful to have a template and a category for these "possible" articles. Then there'd be one place to go to review them and it would be easy for me to tag them as I sort through all the noise. What do you think? I'm not 100% sure how to set up a new template and category but can probably figure it out.
 * 3) Minor question. In today's entries there was one that looked to be either a translation from the german wikipedia or a request for a translation from the german wikipedia. What's the best way to handle those? It seems like adding an entry to the requests for translations might be best. Of course, it's possible that what's there is a good translation - but my German is too weak for me to tell :-( (I'd have better luck if it were French).


 * 1) My suggestion: Once you go more than one or two days' back in the archives, there's not much point in writing up decline notices (even for the obvious ones), since it's very unlikely that the user will check back on the article at that point. Just pick out and process the accepts, leave afc maybe notices on the ones you're unsure about, remove the afc moretodo notice if there is one, and add a note to the top of the page along the lines of "Attention, reviewers: I've looked at all the articles on the page and there appear to be no usable articles other than the ones already marked as accepts or maybes. ~ "
 * 2) There already is such a template, more or less. If you mark an article with afc maybe, then that archive page will show up in Category:Wikipedia article creation requests needing further review. Pages marked with afc moretodo will also show up in this category. So you can just look through the category list, open up a listed page, and search for "Attention, reviewers:" to find the problem. Once you've removed all the maybe and moretodo notices from the page, it will automatically disappear from the category.
 * 3) I normally put a afc maybe notice on the article asking for a reviewer who speaks the appropriate language. I happened to be able to decline a German article today, even though I don't speak German, because it was obvious that the German Wikipedia article was unsourced -- and a translation of an unsourced article is still an unsourced article, and inappropriate for AfC.  But that's the first time that's happened.
 * You're welcome, and thanks again for your contributions! Kickaha Ota 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Article for creation" -> "ProD" -> delete -> undelete -> "AfD"
Hi there. I thought you might like to know that an article you created at Articles for creation was prodded, deleted, undeleted and then put up for deletion at AfD! Details are at Articles_for_deletion/Transfersome. Carcharoth 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OPEX (Corporation)
PS. If you want to know how I stumbled across Transfersome, it was after following a rant that was removed from the Main Page to the Village Pump about a request you declined. It has since been created! See here and here. Carcharoth 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just, wow. Thanks for pointing that out. Kickaha Ota 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The "User boxes out of control" userbox
lol, I guess you wouldnt like my profile then :P PYLrulz 11:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

bpov
hello. i just responded a bit your posting on the village pump about bpov. i do apprecaite what you wrote and that you took the time to engage in a fundamental issue. thanks. Hongkyongnae 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360 response
How is any technical information non-enclyopedic? I even linked to the wiki policy stating images shall have accompanying text.DeathSeeker 14:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't whether technical information is nonencyclopedic; the issue is how much technical information on a given subject is encyclopedic. You linked to Accessibility, which says that images should have appropriate captions, which is indeed A Good And Noble Thing. But the current dispute over how much technical information is appropriate in describing the Xbox 360 doesn't appear to have much of anything to do with image captions. There's always a fine line to be drawn as to how much technical detail is appropriate in an article about a technological subject like the Xbox 360, which is why consensus is so important. But highly-technical information like system bus speeds is generally considered unencyclopedic because most readers of the article won't understand it, and readers who do understand it (and are looking for that sort of information) will generally want even more technical info than whatever you can hope to provide them. So a good approach to satisfy both types of readers is to provide a basic set of the more easily-understandable technical specs, and links to primary and secondary sources that provide the remaining technical specs. (Or, if there's so much highly technical material available that there's a genuine benefit to techies in providing an article that collects and summarizes it, then that material can be split off into a separate article.) Kickaha Ota 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You agree that it is stated wikipolicy to include text with images, correct? Yet you plainly remove it?


 * First, I am not the one who originaly added the information. The page has contained the information for months, and only recently, due to prove a point in a seperate conflict, been removed.
 * Second, take a look at the page, there isn't a pinch of useful information in that rewrite. If the quick overview user looks at the page, they'd get the name and clock speed of the CPU but looking in the infobox. And reading the hardware section, you get no other information that stated in the infobox. If a user continues beyond the lead/infobox it's showing that they don't want a brief non-details included sections. So this section should be written for the user who doesn't want just the clock speed and name of the CPU, but a user seeking more detailed information about it.(I know that this is wiki Policy, but can't for the life of me find the link to it)
 * Third, if there is a problem with technical information, it's not wiki policy to remove it. Under no circumstances should any verifyable information that a user may want be removed. Take a look at the talk pages, many users have asked for technical information. Which clearly shows that users want such info.
 * Fourth, The original version(all versions before, 3~ days ago) contain helpful, verifyable and revelant information. Everything for any user with knowledge of the subject, looking for specific would find it useful. If an effort was made to keep the information available to technical users, while making it easier to read for non-knowledges wusers, I'd be all for it. The current article doesn't make anything easier to read for the average user. Nothing was done to make anything "technical" more understandable. This version just replaces asteriks with commas and removes anything that they can't work into the article. Along with de-detailing with the terribly, Hideous, should never ever be used in an article terms "wide arrary/variety"(Yuck!, so non informative).DeathSeeker 00:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. Linked sections of the article should ideally start out at about the same technical level, so that if the first, accessible paragraph of an article links to a section in the middle of the article, the linked section should also start out accessible. Abundance and redundancy is a guideline dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a '''preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. '''In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.
 * Yes, we already discussed Accessibility. Your argument would have very strong force if I removed the caption from the image. It would have some force if I had altered the image caption in some way.  It would have at least slight force if the text I removed were even discussing the same concepts as the bandwidth diagram image.  However, none of those things are true, so your argument would appear to have no force whatsoever.  The history of who edited what and why isn't very relevant to the question of what belongs in the article in the first place. Yes, a user who proceeds beyond the intro and infobox wants information that's more detailed than that quick overview, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as too much detail in the article itself.  Yes, unsourced or unverifiable information should be removed, but that doesn't mean that all information is appropriate as long as it's sourced and verifiable. Yes, there will always be users who want information beyond what's in the article; but that's why good articles have links to their sources and to other useful external links on the topic.  And yes, the current article has grammatical and structural problems; those problems should be fixed. But that still doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a particular piece of technical information is appropriate. Kickaha Ota 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Totaly the link I was looking for earlier, danke!
 * Even if 90% of users agree it to technical and doesn't suit the average reader. It is accepted wikipolicy to allow the information to be kept, per above and below.

Alfred Buchi
Hi KickahaOta,

I noticed your comment about the uppon mentionned article. As I recently worked on the same article in french fr:Alfred Büchi, I got a reliable source for it in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland you may have a look here Alfred Buchi (you may see the same page in German and Italian as well). It would be nice to have an article about this man in english as well, can you take care of this ?

Best regards.

SalomonCeb 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Afc moretodo
Template:Afc moretodo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ALTON   .ıl  23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)