User talk:Tokek/2006

Welcome to my user talk page. Please use the plus sign next to the "edit this page" link to add new discussions.

Talks on or older than 6 May 2006: User talk:Tokek/Archive 1

---

Your edit to Torrent shocking

Your recent edit to Torrent shocking was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bunko

Just saw your spelling correction. I copied that right from Bunko Kanazawa which I have now corrected. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from making baseless accusations.

In Talk:Japan bashing, you have already made two false accusations against me that were totally baseless. First, you described me as having a "pro-China and anti-Japan POV" and then you openly suggested that I used a sockpuppet to make a comment on the Talk page. You are wrong on both accounts. I think your comments were totally rude and inappropriate and also are in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette and more importantly, Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Thus, I would like to kindly ask you to issue an apology to me on that page. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already posted on that page any clarifications I deamed was necessary and that was back in roughly the March-June time period. Perhaps it's time for you to move on. —Tokek 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not posted anything about your rude accusations that have been proven false. You need to correct this situation as it is defamation. I am highly offended by your comments.--Sir Edgar 00:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I meant by "perhaps it's time for you to move on." It's already creeping me out that you're bringing up a topic at least a couple months old in this fashion. Nobody wants to be cyberstalked, and that does include me. I don't like the direction you are trying to go with this, so please consider taking my advice. It'll mean a whole lot less stress for the both of us. Since I'm not an expert in the field, I don't know how to say this any better. Good luck with your future endeavors. Whatever they may be, I don't care. Please move on. —Tokek 12:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the sake of context, Sir Edgar has had a history of leaving similar comments in other user's talk pages. (i.e., comments less to do with the editing of the article, but more about perceived personal attacks.) I am leaving his comment here as part of Wikipedia courtesy. Sir Edgar's account went inactive soon afterwards, after having an edit dispute at the Japan article, however my only request was for him to stop bugging me about this particular subject, not for him to quit Wikipedia entirely. —Tokek 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

iPod timeline

RE: Image:IPod Models Timeline.svg: Maybe the 4GB iPod mini 1G could connect to the 6GB iPod mini 2G since they were both sold at the same price.—Tokek 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea but it would make the chart confusing and inconsistent because no other bars connect in this way. Also the chart just gives an overview of release dates, not prices.--IE 16:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sanzo

"# (cur) (last) 13:50, 5 September 2005 Tokek (Talk | contribs | block) m (Genjyo Sanzo moved to Genjo Sanzo)"

Which English version is that name based off of? WhisperToMe 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Is this something that Googling can't answer? —Tokek 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Genjo probably because it is closer to hepburn than Genjyo. Nothing more to it than that. If you disagree, feel free to move back.—Tokek 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bincho-tan Survey

The comment you made in the Talk:Bincho-tan survey was in some ways incomprehensible. As it stands, your vote is explicitly in favor of the article title "Bincho-tan" over "Binchōtan," however the comment that you left doesn't seem to favor one over the other. If it's only meant to be a xenophobic comment rather than an actual interest in what the survey is about, I would rather you strikeout your own vote (change the bold word from Oppose to Comment, for example) so as to not mess up the tallying. Thanks. —Tokek 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my response to the page move request was overly terse and abbreviated, and I have elaborated. You might disagree with my opinion there, but please don't characterize my motives. Jonathunder 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. —Tokek 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryukyu Islands Move

Why did you just move the Ryukyu Islands page, despite the fact that I just closed the recent move request as no consensus? Not all moves have to be pre-approved beforehand, and just because a move a couple months ago was not the result of a move request does not mean that it should be defaulted to that title. If you have a problem with my decision, post a comment to the administrators' noticeboard. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article name was Ryukyu Islands WITHOUT macrons until people started moving it without consensus on October 13 and beyond. The article name ought to be Ryukyu Islands, the name it was originally before all the "moves without consensus" began back in October.--Endroit 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article started out as Ryukyu Islands until it was just moved to Ryūkyū Islands in October, triggering a revert war. The article was last moved to Ryūkyū Islands last before discussion begain. Article history comment for this move (apparently intended to be a temporary title?) was:

moved Ryukyu Islands to Ryūkyū Islands: Moving to Ryūkyū Islands prior to moving to Nansei Islands)

However, neither Ryukyu Islands, Ryūkyū Islands, nor Nansei Islands received consensus for article title. As there were no consensus in support of the new article title (Ryūkyū Islands -- by the way, Nansei Islands received very little support and was not officially included in the debate starter), I moved back to the original article title (Ryukyu Islands).

As an example, if the original article was at A, and I wanted to move it to B, but felt that I wouldn't get consensus for the move anyway, wouldn't it be a clever tactic for me to move it first, then ask questions later? Because when the no consensus conclusion is reached, I would get the article title to be B, as I wanted! I don't think so. At least I don't think it is right to encourge such a maneuver.

I'm not suggesting that Bobo12345 had a plan like that. I don't assume so. However, what does no consensus mean anyway? Does it mean that the new proposal shouldn't be rewarded, or does it mean reward whatever title a user could sneak in before the discussion begins? I don't see this as a legitimate "restore article title" debate, but as a disguised debate for garnering support for a new article title. A legitimate restore debate would have probably involved a debate on a move from the old article title to the new article title in the first place. It suggests that there was some legitimate reason that caused the debate be about restoring the old article title rather than proposing the new article title. In this case, there was no such reason.

I won't reiterate my reasoning of why I support the Ryukyu Islands title, however it is based on what WP:MOS-JP says and you can read it at Talk:Ryukyu Islands.

I moved the article title to the original to respect the outcome of the debate, which was no consensus. Well it seems like there is more Wikipedia bureaucracy and replying to cross-postings that I will be required to go through soon. —Tokek 04:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A month transpired between the October move and this recent move request; that's not quite the scenario you mention in the third paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think time can pass quickly when articles are in low visibility, but indeed there was a month delay, as you clarify. The article title was without macrons and with zero moves since creation for almost three years as well. But again the macronned title move did trigger a revert war. I am not really sure exactly which part of my comment you are referring to, however there was about a 3.5 hr gap between the last move before debate began [1]. —Tokek 05:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ryukyu Islands

You said:

"A month transpired between the October move and this recent move request; that's not quite the scenario you mention in the third paragraph."

Not everyone in the know can check changes to each article on one's watchlist on a daily basis. The article existed without macrons for almost three years prior to the move. The person who renamed it added erroneous information that claimed Ryūkyū Shotō (Japanese term) is equivalent to "Ryukyu Islands" (English term). The two terms actually have different definitions. This incorrect information probably caused many editors who visited the article during that month to not notice the problem. You did point out that a month passed, however I never claimed that a month didn't pass. Almost three years passed prior to the move as well. The creation of a non-macronised article three years ago wasn't the start of a revert war. —Tokek 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? I don't remember saying this comment (not because I didn't say it, but because it has been awhile). Is there something you would like me to do? -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I haven't been as active as before on Wikipedia so I forgot how old this topic has become. Checked some other pages and it appears that the situation was resolved anyway. Sorry for the bother. I won't mind if you forget that I brought this up. —Tokek 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu"

Hello, Tokek. I noticed that you've voted in Poll: "Ogasawara Islands" instead of "Bonin Islands" in the WP:MOS-JA talk page. As you know, the other poll Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu" is also ongoing until Dec. 13. The voting seems to be deadlocked, with many outside voters rather than frequent contributors to the WP:JP project like yourself. It would really help if you can either comment or vote there, although I'll understand if you would prefer to stay out of the controversy. Thank you for your consideration.

(For full details and background information, see Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū (in the WP:MOS-JA talk page) and Talk:Ryukyu Islands.)--Endroit 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Spellings

Hi I took your advice, and checked my dictionary. I was correct in my spelling, so I'd thank you not to bother questioning my motives in future. Furthermore, The Japanese Calendar has no strong ties to American English, so the standard Commonwealth English should apply, as stated in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (fixed now)Bennelliott 12:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Of course you were correct in your spelling, however the spelling that you replaced was already correct. I wasn't questioning your motive, I was telling you to check a dictionary before you swap out American English spelling with Commonwealth English spelling, since if it's correct in American English, there is little need to "fix" it. 1, your edit was frivolous and pointless, and 2, you replaced a direct link with a link that points to a redirect first. "Wikipedia Code of Conduct"?( by this I meant the Wikipedia Manual of Style Bennelliott 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)) Bull. Please give me the link and section you are supposedly referring to. --Tokek 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a need to correct it, as I have already explained, because there is no strong tie to American English, and the whole article should use the same style of English. Bennelliott 12:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Wikipedia policy page that you are referring to: "...please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page."

It was still inaccurate to say that if there is no strong ties to American English, BrE should automatically be used. —Tokek 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[2] What I've been talking about. —Tokek 09:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)