User talk:Novil Ariandis

Rating
I won't do it, but I'd invite you to consider reverting your deletion of the rating. The rating is assigned by members of wikiprojects (in this case, mammals), and "B" corresponds to a set of descriptors; follow the blue clickie. It wouldn't really be appropriate for the initiator of an article to assign the rating. BTW: Except very initially, we can't really speak of "authors" of Wikipedia articles. Someone starts it, then it belongs to everybody who contributes. You clearly know a lot about raccoons. DavidOaks (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't do it, but I'd invite you to consider reverting your deletion of the rating.
 * Okay, removing was probably not the right thing to do, but I have written my opinion beneath the rating boxes now.
 * we can't really speak of "authors" of Wikipedia articles. [...]'
 * I meant author in the sense of main author.
 * --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have looked at various other discussion pages and the rating system (not including good and featured articles) is completely useless and arbitrary and should therefore go away and never come back. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Raccoon page moves
Hello, Novil Ariandis! Just a head's up regarding "fixing" capitalization on mammal articles: you are walking into a hornet's nest! See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves for a list of all of the debates/arguments/fights. Until a consensus is reached (likely through mediation & hopefully rather soon), would you mind reverting those moves yourself? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just wanted to make the page titles consistent with the version used by the majority of raccoon experts. WikiProject Mammals also says Respect the original or primary authors; do not up and change something without notification, as you may be reverted. Well, the original author(s) have chosen the capitalized version, but since I am the sole author of practically any non trivial information in the articles now, I thought that it was okay for me to move the pages. Since the capitalized page titles are inconsistent with the main sources I think that reverting the moves is the wrong decision, so I won't do it myself. However, I also won't stop anybody else from doing it, since I doubt any reader cares about this stuff. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Raccoon nom
IU was the one who nominated Island raccoons. I should havetold you, but I've been busy lately.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Raccoon GAC
It doesn't take long editing on Wikipedia to realise that people will generally disagree ^-^. I would agree though that improving an article is much more important than its rather arbitrary "status". Since this article is quite good, but needs a fair bit of literary revision, it's taking me a bit longer than expected. I also had more to do today than I thought I would, so I'm not sure if I'll be finished before sometime Friday (I'm on Chilean time, so 6 hours behind you if you are in Germany), but I'll try to get it done as soon as possible. Thanks for the quick feedback! DJLayton4 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Long-term monogamy is mammals
Hi, do you know which mammals who show long-term monogamy? Some examples I know are Peromyscus polionotus and Lutrogale perspicillata.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am really not an expert in this field. There are examples of long-term monogamy among wolves and red foxes, but I am sure you already knew that. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Furry fandom GAC
Thank you for your contribution to the improvement of furry fandom! I am confident that, in time, the problems you highlighted will be addressed in full. . . even if it takes another year. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reasons why I failed the article were more or less formal, but I also think that the overall quality of the content is only a B+ at the moment and some important facts could be added by someone who has a thorough look at the best available newspaper articles. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I would rather have a B+ than a GA- (and not just because it costs less :-). I will have a go at improving it myself when I get a chance. Thanks again! GreenReaper (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII GAN
Hi. I think I've addressed your GA concerns for gameplay and plot, so if you could take a look at the rest, that would be great. The Prince (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and development. The Prince (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, I've taken care of the remaining points. PS: What does it mean when the comments are marked in red? The Prince (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

North American River Otter–GA Nomination
Hello Novil Ariandis.

Regarding your inquiry about the river otter article, it is ready for the GA assessment. A lot of time, effort, and collaboration has been put into refining and expanding the article, so it should be in good shape. The large number of edits made during the "standby" period (since there was a GA review backlog), included copy-edits and some article expansion, but now the article is ready to go.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again Novil Ariandis.


 * It's been quite a while since I've posted my article for GA Nomination, and so far I haven't had any response to my request for GA Nomination other than your inquiry. I was wondering if you could perhaps provide a final briefing for the article. I suppose there's not a whole lot to check over, as I worked with many editors to make this article conform to GA standards. Essentially, all that is needed is an outside editor/reviewer to check over and pass it to complete the objective.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Novil Ariandis! Tacking this on to Wikitrevor's comment above: were you planning to review the GAN of this article, or were you just commenting?  I am willing to review it, but don't want to step on anyone's toes :)  Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would review it if nobody else would do it. Since you seem to be interested, please do it. I am still waiting for a feedback on my review of the leopard. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Allright, I will get the review up later today. Please feel free to comment if you wish.  Thanks for the quick response! Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

re:
because I really thought the article is close to being a GA, but the list of problems is waaay longer than I had anticipated. as such, I would rather spend my energy in articles where I know more about and where I enjoy contributing more. Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing Raccoon
You wrote on my talk page:

''I’m beginning to get annoyed by your unsubstantial edits to the raccoon article. I therefore propose that you don’t make changes to the article (based on this revision), not including copyedits, any longer without establishing a consensus about the proposed changes beforehand on the discussion page and the mental approval of the fact that the article got overwhelming support as Featured Article candidate recently and is therefore not in need of an extensive revision. I myself will adhere to the same procedure. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)''

How to respond? So many things to address here...

It would be very good indeed for you to resolve to work through consensus. My own record for seeking consensus is quite good, I think. Have a look at the talk page. As for insubstantiality, sorry, I don’t recognize your authority to render that judgment (though you’ve done so numerous times). It is certainly not sustained by consensus. I’d say your judgments of relevance and substantiality are widely and regularly off the mark outside of strictly biological topics. I counsel you to cultivate discursive humility. You may learn something about claims, warrants and backing outside the fields you are most familiar with.

FA's are certainly subject to improvement. That one was deficient in its cultural aspects, and I have heard none but you suggest that it was harmed by my efforts.

Broader matters: I wouldn't normally express myself this way, but since you establish the precedent...I'm far past annoyed with your approach to the editing process, your disregard for the work of others, and disinclination to work through consensus, to the detriment of the article (a shame really, in light of the impressive amount of good work you've done on it) and very, very much to the detriment of the community. Please have a critical look at the tone you take in disagreement. Think you can do that? Manners matter. Really. DavidOaks (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

conflict
N.A., our numerous disagreements over content have taken a personal edge which, I'm sure you'll agree, in itself does nothing to improve the article. I have recently reviewed the following guidelines, found the exercise useful, and commend them to you as well:


 * Wikiquette
 * How to avoid Talk page abuse
 * WP:Civility
 * WP:MASTODONS
 * single author
 * An uncivil environment is a poor environment
 * How to be civil

I believe you have not been consistent in your use of the discussion page and the consensus process. You have continually made claims, based on the FA status of the article, that it should undergo only minimal change and only with consensus approval. I am not aware that any such WP guideline exists.

That's a key point of disagreement. However, this post has another purpose. I am writing to put you on notice regarding your consistent pattern of behavior. I will simply state that I find it offensive when my contributions are called "objectionable," "irrelevant," "annoying," and "disruptive." When one uses adjectives in this way, it gives one's private judgment the outward form of statement of fact. That, in turn, casts the speaker in the role of one empowered to make such determinations. I have tried to make it clear to you that you enjoy no such privilege. While it is indeed a personal offense against the person so treated, that's not a personal reaction, but contained in the guidelines I've mentioned above.

I find it offensive when another editor furthermore takes such claims, which I regard as not only empty but harmful to the good reputation that my three years of editing have built, to the admin board. I find it offensive when that editor proposes that I be restricted in my editing privileges. I experience this as persecutory and prosecutory. I do not expect any such action from the admins, and am not worried about it. But I take it as personal rather than as directed to the improvement of the article, and I resent it. Insofar as it is directed exclusively at me, I regard it as harassment.

I find civility lacking. Edit summaries such as "No" and "No No No," making another editor and his contributions the subject of a talk-page section, referring to someone's properly cited, contextualized contributions as "irrelevant pieces of trivia," "made-up statistics" "meaningless" -- all of these run much against the necessary spirit of civility. Again, this is not personal, but a report on how your choice of expression affects others. Example: "If you truly want to contribute something meaningful to this article, you have to educate yourself and read some scientific literature about raccoons to understand what is important and what is not;" "It's not that I would commit seppuku if another sentence would be added to the chapter 'Raccoons as food'", or (this addressed to a third party, also offensive) "...but together with several other edits by DavidOaks which are/were giving redundant or trivial information on the wrong places, I feel that there is a great danger that the worst chapter of the article, regarding accuracy and quality of sources, gets even worse. You just can't come around and add this and that to a featured article." I am documenting at length because it is not a matter of one or two lapses in self-control, as happens to the best of us, but rather a consistent record of abrasive expression.

It has been extremely hard to avoid responding to such expression in like manner. Most of the time I have resisted, but my resolve has been imperfect, for which, apologies. However, I find that there is a long history of public and personal abuse. I ask that you desist. There is plenty of evidence right here to bring a case against you before the admin board, and let them determine its acceptability. Thus far, I have resisted for the simple reason that, in light of your having complained about me, it might appear petty or vindictive. I do not want that. I simply want a modification of your behavior and compliance with wikistandards. DavidOaks (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Now, having said all that, I have repeatedly praised your abilities and dedication, which have resulted in a really good article. You are long overdue for...

Planescape: Torment
Hi! I have a few questions about the review at Talk:Planescape: Torment/GA1, if you could take a look and respond there. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready for a re-review. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "story" section has just been greatly expanded. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

edit summary at Raccoon
Am noting that my explained revision was characterized as vandalism, and was reverted without explanation. I await explanation. I assume WP:GF. DavidOaks (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing the line "RACCONS ROCK AND THIER AWSOME" inserted by an IP qualifies as "rvv" in my eyes. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I closed Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds; your participation would be welcome. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Standup Comics
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Standup Comics. I do not think that Standup Comics fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because the mention of mass-market publication is in my view at least a claim of notability. I request that you consider not re-tagging Standup Comics for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with prod or nominate it at WP:AFD. DES (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raccoon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fictional raccoons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk tale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)