User talk:Ken Arromdee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello there Ken, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice addition to the Lemon (Anime) article. Cheers! --maveric149

Contents

Sailor Moon[edit]

Hi Mr Arromdee! I'm so glad to find you on Wikipedia. Recently I've started a Wikicity called Sailor Moon Wiki and I was wondering if, since you wrote the infamous Sailor Moon FAQ, you could come help out. We only have a few editors right now but it's just been open a couple of days! ^~ If you think you like the idea, please come check it out! ♥purplefeltangel 20:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not heard that name in many years[edit]

Ken Arromdee? Are you the same one who used to be the "Arromdian" of so many Serdar Argic posts on Usenet?Daniel Case 16:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your listing of Mary Sue fanfiction on WP:CP[edit]

Don't list this on WP:CP, just revert the copyvio material. Only pages whose complete history is a copyvio should be listed here. I'm hacking through a gigantic backlog, so please pardon the vehemence. Thanks for noticing the copyvio, in any case. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. JesseW 19:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Buffy[edit]

On a Buffy related discussion page you wrote "*I* don't consider Family, the magic addiction story, or the rampant male-bashing in the later part of the series to be subtle or nuanced,and I don't think I'm the only one." I am curious what your complaint about "family" is, and what you think is bale-bashing in the later series. I'm just always interested to hear people's thoughts about Buffy. BarkingDoc 01:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

American comic book[edit]

As a contributor to the above article, would you mind looking through it and seeing if you can provide any references? The reason I ask is that at WPT:CMC we are trying to get more comics articles given Featured Article status. Thanks for any help you could provide. Hiding talk 15:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight[edit]

As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Hiding talk 15:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Cuñado[edit]

I appreciate your standing firm on Cuñado's, frankly, specious arguments. He seems to feel that presenting an argument involves repeating oneself long enough for the other side to get tired and go away — facts to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ken, please see today's Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and add to it if you see fit. Thanks. MARussellPESE 19:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I remember you...[edit]

Thanks for fixing that silliness at Kryptonite. It's much improved now. By the way, I think I remember you from rec.arts.comics.misc in the early '90s. I spent a lot of time there circa 1993 — I was there for the founding of the Net.Trenchcoat.Brigade, and was briefly a member (as Yo-Yo the owl). Lot of water under the bridge since then — heck, I'm not sure that the bridge is even still there — but it's nice to see a familiar name. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

ACLU and spam[edit]

Hi Ken -- thanks for finding the spam para that got lost! Sdedeo (tips) 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rogue?[edit]

Ken,

I know you worked on Nethack, but were you also involved in Rogue? Perhaps the MS-DOS port?

Nandesuka 18:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid AFD[edit]

Hi Ken, you forgot to sign your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase). Please do so. Thanks. fullsome prison 15:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and NOR[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. If people have criticised Moore for something, then add links pointing to those people actually criticising him. Don't point to statistics that appear to back up their arguments. AlistairMcMillan 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

X-American list proposal[edit]

Hi, I am contacting you as you have expressed some interest in the current arguments over lists of X-Americans. I would appreciate if you could have a read of my proposal and state whether you support or oppose it Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Thanks! Arniep 11:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Arromdee?[edit]

Ken Arromdee, from LSH-L, etc? How've you been, man? DS 16:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium[edit]

He's now trying to sneak the material into The Sunday Times (UK) article, apparently as one of the 6 biggest stories the Times has ever broken: [1] Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Deuterium is trying to add it to the Ethnic bioweapon page. [2] Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fauxtography on deletion review[edit]

I have opened a deletion review of Fauxtography. Since you previously commented on the articles AfD, I hope you will check out this review and add your comments. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA request[edit]

I'm trying to solve a sticky problem on Talk: Smallville (TV series)#Character basis where User:Bignole absolutely refuses to allow a neutral statement about what character Smallville is based on. There is an ongoing legal dispute about whether the character is Superboy or Superman (Superboy has a different legal status than Superman and is not considered the same character). Since the character is disputed, a statement that the series is based on one specific character should not be stated as a fact, but should be described in a NPOV manner which includes both claims.

Here's the text I want to include:

DC Comics claims that Smallville is based on the DC character Superman. However, the heirs of Jerry Siegel claim the show is based on the character Superboy, of which the Siegels, as has been ruled in a recent lawsuit, own the rights. Superboy and Superman are considered legally distinct characters, even though in the fictional context, Superboy is a younger version of Superman.

Currently, the article describes the dispute between DC and the Siegels, but only after making a flat out statement that "Smallville is based on the DC Comics character Superman." In other words, it says the equivalent of "This is true. However, some people may be disputing it." That's not neutral wording.

Bignole variously denies that the lawsuit exists or that it's actually about what character the series is based on (because he doesn't think "derivative of", "about", "infringes on the rights of", etc. have anything to do with "based on"), claims that Superboy and Superman are the same character (which sounds plausible, but isn't true given the unusual legal situation), and claims that since the creators of the show claim it's based on Superman, we must take them at their word (to which I gave several examples where we describe a dispute neutrally despite definitive statements by the creator, for instance Baby Ruth.)

I am at a loss to what to do at this point. I tried a third opinion (who agreed with me; Bignole ignored it), and tried a RFC (which received no comments from anyone but me and Bignole). Perhaps some advocate could get people to comment on the RFC? Should I try to take this to mediation? Ken Arromdee 05:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ken Arromdee, I'm Royalguard11 from the AMA, and I've accepted your case. I have looked over your brief and full statements, and it seems that your in the right in this situation. Because of complex legal mumbo-jumbo, we can't say one thing and ignore all the facts. If the heirs of Jerry Siegel claim that Clark Kent in smallville doesn't equal Clark Kent Superman, and they own the rights to Superman (and I assume that they do), then they have the right to say what is cannocal and what is not (kind of like Lucas or Tolkien).
Actually it's a bit more complicated. Because of an old legal decision, Superboy and Superman are considered separate characters, and because of a newer legal decision, the two characters now have separate ownership. The owners of Superboy (the Siegels) claim the series is based on Superboy, and the owners of Superman (DC) claim the series is based on Superman. Ken Arromdee 05:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Because of NPOV, and the fact we must follow the law, it is wikipedia's duty to report that the origin of the character is in dispute. Unfortunatly, an advocate can't force people to take part in a RFC, but the best advice I could give you on that would be to post it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics to alert people who have similar intrests to take part. Just post a new topic on their talk page, and if the people are paying attention and if you provide a link, then you might have people giving comments.
If you need anything more, I'll be watching this talk page, or you can post on my talk page or on my desk. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't be afraid to e-mail me by using the "email this user" function from my userpage. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the triple post, but I have another recomendation: you should open up a WP:RFC on that page to make sure all editors can comment. Making it on the talk page is only going to reach so many people who are looking at the article and then want to look at the talk page. I hope this all helps. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I already opened up an RFC. It is in [[3]]. Nobody responded to it. Ken Arromdee 06:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You might want to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics on their talk page to tell them a RFC is open. It might get some people who like comics to give a responce.
Why don't you provide the links for him Ken. No where in there does it say "The Seigels say 'Smallville is based on Superboy". Ken is misinterpreting what is being said. Lawsuits dictate precisely what they say, nothing more. If the lawsuit is about ownership, then what something is based on has no warrant in the discussion. They are trying to figure out if Warner owes them money for using a fictional town, and a character that they own, without permission. The lawsuit is supposed to determine if Clark Kent of the show is Superboy of the comics, and if the town of Smallville falls under the ownership of the Seigels. I'm sorry, but unless the suit actually says that they are petitioning that "Smallville the television show is in fact based on Superboy" then it has not bearing on the case. That is the point of a lawsuit, to state what you want. Ken keeps trying to say that the Seigels have stated that this, but no where in any of their lawsuits have the stated such information. They are merely trying to obtain the rights to what they believe is theirs. If the town is declared to be part of Superboy then Warner will owe them money for using that trademark. If it is determined that Clark Kent of the show is in fact Superboy then they will owe the Seigels money for using that character since 2004 (when the Siegels gained the rights back). Ken is trying to make it seem as though I am ignoring him, when he is misreading the facts of his own links. User:Doczilla and User:Hiding actually agree with me. Hiding even tried to create a compromised sentence to better illustrate the situation. Bignole 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason the Seigals own "Superboy" is because they still own the comics he created called Superboy, featuring the character of Superboy. So technically speaking, it's not inaccurate, just a little oddly-worded (in that, the argument is probably that it's based on the Superboy comics and the world/events/characters in them... not that it was completely "based on" the character himself). How none of you see this and see it as worth rewording is beyond me :\. Runa27 22:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
They never owned the comics. They own the character of Superboy because DC told Jerry Siegel they didn't want a Superboy, but after he left they created the comics themselves. The court awarded the family ownership of Superboy, the character, because of the shady business practices of DC (when under normal circumstances DC/Warner ((whatever you want to refer to)) would actually own Superboy under the "deritative of original work" clause). Again, there is no argument about the basis, the argument, stated by the lawyer, is that the town belongs to the Siegels and that Clark Kent is a ripoff of Superboy (who they own). They don't actually own the comics, they own the character. Bignole
The Siegels have not disputed that the show is based on the character Superman. Ken has never provided a quote to indicate anything of the sort.
The only reason you and Bignole think there's no such quote is that you refuse to accept any quote that doesn't use the exact words "based on". Ken Arromdee 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
They're arguing about (1) whether young Clark Kent equals Superboy and (2) whether they own the fictional setting. The character Superboy is based on the character Superman. The Siegels don't deny that. Doczilla 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Legally speaking, Superman and Superboy aren't the same character. "Based on Superboy" does not imply "based on Superman". Ken Arromdee 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "based on Superboy" legally does not mean "based on Superman", as far as monetary settlement goes. BUT, "Clark Kent is based on Superboy" does not translate to "Smallville is based on Superboy". That is the point you are missing. You are attempting to translate a quote to your liking. Having a character based on another character does not mean that everything else is based on that same character. Bignole
A quote saying "Clark Kent is Superboy" does not mean that the show is based on Superboy, it means that the character of Clark Kent was based on Superboy. Saying "Smallville is part of the ownership of Superboy" isn't saying the show is based on Superboy either. That is saying that using anything associated with Smallville, the town, or the name, falls under the ownership of Superboy regardless of what you based the show on. There has not been any quote about the lawsuit that said anything other than those two things. The Judge felt that enough evidence could show that Smallville was about Superboy, but that was his opinion and had no bearing on the follow up lawsuit regarding Smallville (the town). No one has been quoted saying anything other than the two things I have just provided for you. The Siegel lawyer is the only one talking about the lawsuit, and the two things he has been quoted as saying is "Smallville is part of the Superboy copyright", and "Clark Kent is indeed Superboy". That has nothing to do with the basis for the show, and the fact that you are attempting to interpret that as it does means that you aren't following NPOV. The lawsuit is about whether WB owes them money for all the shows they produced since 2004, because of the potentiality that Smallville might fall under the Superboy copyright. The show could be based on Batman for all the Siegels care, but the fact that it's titled Smallville, and based in a town that was first introduced in a Superboy comic, they run the risk of copyright violation. If the show had nothing to do with Superman, and was about idiot high schoolers and their everyday lives, the shear fact that it's based in a town that could be owned by the Siegels is the reason for the lawsuit. The lawsuit covers two things: who owns Smallville and is Clark Kent just a teenager who becomes Superman, or is he really Superboy without the suit. Go back and read your links, the whole point is to figure out if any incarnation of Superman, pre-adulthood, is considered part of the Superboy copyright. That means that if a movie about Superman uses flashback sequences of a young Clark then it needs to be determined if those scenes of a young Clark will need the permission of the Siegels to be used. They could care less about what the show is based on, it's about figuring out what follows under this Superboy copyright, because right now the only thing they own is the character itself. Bignole 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Ken Arromdee. I've have kept monitering the who situation that has been going on with the Superman dispute, and I'm wondering if it's settled then. More opinions have been brought in I see. If you need any more help, just ask. If you don't, that's fine too. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been settled and I'll probably have to take this into nmediation. Bignole has been posting messages that are so long that it would be impossible to respond to everything he says, and it's tiresome to explain for the nth time that yes, I actually did provide a quote showing what he says I didn't show. He's still saying, for instance, that the lawsuit is about "Smallville the town" and doesn't affect Smallville the show. Ken Arromdee 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please pay attention to what I DID SAY. I said the lawsuit is about the Smallville the town (yes), but I did not say it doesn't affect the show. If they rule that Smallville the town calls under Superboy copyright then it does affect the show, it affects it in the manner that WB will have to pay the Siegels for permission to produce anymore episodes of Smallville. The lawsuit isn't about Smallville (the show) directly, it's about the setting and about the character Clark Kent in the show. NOT about the show in entirety, but if they rule the setting is the part of their ownership, and that Clark Kent is Superboy then that will affect the show. Please stop misinterpreting what I say, when I'm saying it directly as such. Also, you provided no quote from the Siegels that could be verified. None of your links list the Siegels as saying anything, and the only quote that proves your opinion is from a judge that has no bearing on this current suit. What He says has nothing to do with what they are actually filing for. Find a list of the everything being petitioned for on the lawsuit, or find a quote from the lawyer or the Siegels stating what their lawsuit is about. Otherwise you are merely quoting people's opinions and people's opinion have no bearing on the lawsuit that says otherwise. If the Siegels went around saying Smallville is based on Batman, we certainly wouldn't go putting that in the article, unless they were actually suing for that. Stop trying to interpret what they are filing for, that is not NPOV. I have never interpreted anything, I have quoted verbatum what the lawyer has said he was filing for, because he's the only one that has been quoted saying any such information. Bignole 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interpreting what they have filed for. I am referencing other sources which do the interpretation. This is considered legitimate by Wikipedia standards. The entire text of the lawsuit isn't publically available, so this is the best we can do.
Just because no source uses the exact words "based on" doesn't mean that it's "interpretation" of my own to say that the suit concerns whether Smallville is based on Superboy. Ken Arromdee 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, the best you can do is quote people that are actually involved in the lawsuit (i.e. The Siegels and/or their lawyer). You keep quoting the judge from the previous lawsuit, who has not bearing on this current one. His opinion is obsolete, it's an opinion. There is no reason to quote anyone that is trying to interpret anything when you have direct quotes from the horse's mouth. What did the lawyer say they were filing for? It is not Wikipedia's position to interpret for the readers, especially when you can direct quote and have them interpret for themselves. It's understandible if there are no quotes and all these interviews are paraphrased, then we wouldn't have anything else to go on but the reports opinion of the situation. BUT, we do have stuff to go on. We have what the lawyer has said the suit is about. He has said it is about proving that Smallville is part of the Superboy copyright, and that Clark Kent is indeed Superboy. This has no bearing on what the show is based or derived from. It's about determining if aspects of the show are part of the Siegels' ownership, and of WB owes them money for every episode filmed since November 2004. It's that simple. That's how the Overview section lists it, and that's fulfills the NPOV of Wikipedia. There is no lie, there is no interpretation, there are only the facts, plain and simple. Bignole 14:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh.
"We have what the lawyer has said the suit is about. He has said it is about proving that Smallville is part of the Superboy copyright, and that Clark Kent is indeed Superboy.
Saying that the main character in Smallville is Superboy is equivalent to saying that Smallville is based on Superboy.
"This has no bearing on what the show is based or derived from."
[1] "I believe it's impossible to honestly trace the history of Smallville without accounting for its derivation from Superboy," intellectual property attorney Marc Toberoff, who represents the Siegels, said Wednesday. Ken Arromdee 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Clark being Superboy does not mean the show is based on Superboy. What they are saying is that any version of a teenage Clark Kent is Superboy, by default. Saying that the history of Smallville has to account for a derivation of Superboy does not mean that it is solely a derivation of Superboy. He is saying that no matter how you look through the history of Smallville you will come across things that are part of the Superboy copyright, he didn't say that the entire show was based or derived from Superboy, he said you had to account for it's derivation from Superboy, which is the portions of it that he believes were taken from Superboy. There are too many elements that are solely part of the Superman universe, and not of the Superboy universe. Again you are attempting to interpret. Again, you can have portions of something and it still not mean that you based an entire concept around it. They are refering to how you can trace the setting of Smallville to the Superboy comics, and how Clark Kent is actually just a Superboy ripoff. Stick to the facts, which is directly what they say. You want to include the quote from the lawyer, fine, but stop trying to interpret what is said to fit what YOU think. Bignole
Let me see if I can explain this better for you. Lawyers word things a certain way for a reason, because you word it to where you know you can prove it. It would be much simpler to say "Smallville is Superboy" or "Smallville is based on Superboy", but he doesn't, because he knows what he can prove. He's said 3 things. One is about the town, because no one determined earlier if the town was part of the Siegels' ownership. No matter what, if they find that it is then WB owes them a lot of money for using the town without permission. Next, they are trying to prove that any incarnation of Clark, before Superman, should be considered Superboy. It doesn't matter what he does, but the fact that he ISN'T Superman means that he has to be Superboy, because that was the first time he was represented in teenage form. This is talking about the character only. The jury has to decide if any Clark that isn't Superman (i.e. toddler-till he puts on the cape) is actually a Superboy representation. This has nothing to do with the show, but about the legality of using any Clark Kent before he's actually Superman. He can be based on whatever you like, but it's their contention that regardless of his basis, the fact that you are using him as a young adult makes him their property. The last thing he said was about the first two things. There's no other reason for him to dance around it. If he was going to say the show was based on Superboy he would just say that. He didn't though. He said "you can't look at the history of Smallville without taking into account it's derivation from Superboy". He's still talking about the things he plans to prove. Because you can't take into account Smallville's history without acknowledging that "the town" and "Clark Kent" are from Superboy. He's refering to aspects of the show that are taken from Superboy. They are not challenging the basis of the show, just were they got some of their elements. Bignole
"There's no other reason for him to dance around it. If he was going to say the show was based on Superboy he would just say that."
He did say it; he just said it using different words. If you say something using different words you're not "dancing around" it; you're saying it. Ken Arromdee 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No he didn't. Saying "you can't look at Smallville's history without taking into account a derivation of Superboy" is not equivalent to "Smallville is based on Superboy". I'm not sure how reading comprehension is taught where you live, but that's a leap. What he is saying is that when you look at Smallville's history, you have to note the aspects that are from SUPERMAN and the aspects that are from SUPERBOY. You are stretching this thing to try and fit what you were fighting for. If he meant what you think he meant, he would literally say that. He wouldn't say "you can't do this, without doing this". Because obviously, you can't look at Superboy's history without taking into account a derivation from Superman. The characters may be legally separate, but his history is a derivation of Superman. You are confusing two different things. You are taking the fact that Superboy is separate from Superman, and thus if someone is claimed to be based on Superboy, they couldn't be based on Superman. Unfortunately, the separation only applies to legality/monetary permission.

I'm sorry, but it's clear when he says "you can't do it without taking into account a derivation of Superboy", that he's referring to his previous comments of "the town being part of the Superboy copyright" and "Clark Kent being a Superboy ripoff". That whole "taking into account" part is what separates his meaning from being "the show's entire basis is from Superboy" and "the show contains elements that are part of the Superboy copyright". Bignole 19:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to your claim that it has nothing to do with what the show is based on *or derived from*. A quote about derivation pretty directly disproves your statement. Ken Arromdee 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Section Break[edit]

So, from what I'm getting from this arguement, one side makes a claim (that has a very long legal background attatched to it), but this actually has more to do with the town "Smallville" falling under one copyright or another? If Clark Kent is a teenager, then he's automatically Superboy? I see there is a lot of arguement on both sides, so maybe the best step now is to start trying to come up with what should be included in the article. I know that legal this and legal that is important, but this is Wikipedia, and the goal is to create an encyclopedia. How about we start discussing what to include and what not to include then? (the section break was to make editing easier). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already adjusted the main article to include the legal stuff, Ken has yet to respond to the changes made to it. Those changes were made when Hiding mediated the first time. The next statements detail exactly what Warner Brothers originally stated the show to be about, and it then goes on to include the legal battle of copyright infringement, which quotes the lawyer but does not attempt to interpret what he means. Bignole 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the changes were made on September 7, long after Hiding got involved.
It's worded poorly, but it's okay with respect to NPOV. (It's not clear why you're still arguing things that have been taken out of the article anyway.) Ken Arromdee 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Long after? This is why I believe you have some issues with reading. Hiding made his "comments by Hiding" on Sept. 6. Sept 7 is hardly "long after" he got involved. Please stop trying to make me look like I'm fudging information, when I haven't. Second, your quote did not disprove my argument, you proved nothing more than what he had already said. When someone says "take into account" they are referring to something specific that you need to note. If he meant the entire show was a derivative of Superboy, he would have said that, but he didn't. He said that if you want to look at it's history you have to "you can't do it without taking into account a derivation of Superboy", which is what he is meaning when he says the town is from Superboy (you know, that part where it was first mentioned in a Superboy comic, thus makes the history of the town itself a derivative of Superboy) and the part where they intend to prove that Clark is actually Superboy, sans costume (which again would be a derivative of Superboy). There are too many other elements that are NOT derivatives of Superboy, thus he doesn't intend to make the claim that the entire show is based on Superboy, only that elements were taken.
What's not clear is what you are still arguing about. You are the one that keeps saying "i'm going to take this to mediation". The rewritten section has been that way since Sept 7 (as you noted) but you've obviously never taken the time to read it, even after I've told you before that it was rewritten to conform to NPOV. And what exactly is the "worded poorly" part? I'm sure you're monitoring the page, so you know it's be written over again by other users that thought it sounded better a different way. You need to be specific if you are going to make a claim. Bignole 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I said it's okay now. I'm not going to bother arguing over poor wording; we don't have a poor wording policy like we have a NPOV policy. Ken Arromdee 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to argue with you over that. I'm seriously interested in what you think is poorly worded. I think that if we can agree on anything it should be about how to write something with better style. Is it the current version that contains poor wording, or was it the original version (the one made on Sept 7) the one you are referring to? Or, some other version that appeared before this current one. It's be rewritten since Sept 7 like 3 or 4 times. Bignole 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is everthing settled here then? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any discussion for several days, I'm going to assume that this has been settled then. I will close this case on the AMA page. If you wish, there is a followup here that you can fill out. I hope I've been helpful here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of the photo request[edit]

You wrote in your edit of the Talk page at Mary Sue:

Photographing a fictional character is hard.

The only reason I put that tag on the Talk page is because I couldn't find any tags for "Illustration request" or a more general "picture" request tag.

Therefore, I find it frustrating that you feel it's worth removing, but not worth replacing with an equivalent tag, if such a tag even exists (I find it doubtful that it does not, but it's possible). The article could really use a good picture (say, of a very stereotypically "Mary Sue" character, which I imagine could be done quite cleverly), and I don't think anyone would disagree that it could at least use one, though I haven't really the hand-eye coordination to do such an illustration myself (it is simply maddening, when you can come up with the concept, but not execute it). If you know of an "illustration request" or "picture request" tag, please put it on Talk:Mary Sue.

Sidenote: this is the nitpicker in me, but "Mary Sue" isn't a "fictional character"; it is a general concept about fictional characters/subjective term used to refer to some fictional characters in reference to perceived qualities (or lack thereof, heh). Not quite the same thing. Sorry if I sound snappish here - I don't mean to - but there's been a lot of people in the past on that article trying to list "Mary Sues", when by default, this is impossible (one can only refer to other people describing characters using the term); or people trying to sneak in widely-held but unsourced (or sourced to utterly unnotable sources) fandom views, or even their own character-related biases. It's a concept of characterization and perception of characters far more than it is an archetype by any stretch of the imagination. You have no idea (or maybe you do, heh) how hard it is to keep that simple fact consistent and NPOV consistent throughout the article. :\ Runa27 22:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars kid[edit]

Thank you very much for your help. I am glad that some people on Wikipedia do care about other people's feelings. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 04:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT a "random link"[edit]

The link to the eye color article was done as a citation for the fact that there are odd eye colors that though rare, do exist in humans; in other words, pointing out that violet and especially amber eyes (the latter of which I know of no famous celebrities that have that trait, unlike Elizabeth Taylor having violet ones) exist, as well as explanations for the colors (which are on that page, but not on Mary Sue because it's a side-issue, not a main issue, to do with the "unrealistic" aspect of the concept of "Mary Sue"). It was NOT a random link, it was more information that was related to the topic in that section/sentence of "unusual physical traits that are often treated as the mark of a Mary Sue, but which do occur in real life sometimes." (to paraphrase). I'm reinserting the link, because darnit, do you know how long it took to figure out where it was that I could prove there were "honey-colored" (amber) eyes (over an hour, thanks to "yellow eyes" not having a redirect or even a disambig. Come to think of it, I should fix that...)? That page is the only one on Wikipedia that had that information, that PROVED that the trait of amber eyes - which was being cited as an example of a "rare but real trait" exists! And I do believe it is worth linking, and more to the point, see NO reason whatsoever why it HAS to be removed. If people don't care about amber or violet eyes, they won't click on the link; if they DO, however (for instance, if, like me, they didn't originally know those traits did exist in humans, or are curious as to how common they really are), they won't have to search for it... which is the whole point of internal links (before you argue, consider this: do we "need" links on Dixie Chicks to the articles on its individual members? Not technically, but it's a convienience for the reader that doesn't want to have to go over to the Search box, but wants to know more about the individual band members. Also, again, "yellow eyes" and similar terms do NOT redirect to the appropriate page!).

And if you don't think the fact that "yellow" or violet eyes of a kind exist in real human beings is relevant to the concept of "Mary Sue", you've not read enough fan fiction; practically every werewolf character that gets labeled a "Sue" has a yellow eyes, and due probably to the influence of anime and manga on American teenagers (who are apparently the producers of the majority of fan fiction today, if you go by the largest archive, FanFiction.net), "weird" hair and eye colors - including violet! - are also common. The fact that these eye colors do exist provides a minor counterargument to the "unrealistic" aspect, and that's exactly why it was mentioned under "Criticism" (along of course with the appropriate countercounterargument pointing out that they're still fairly rare traits).

And if you don't think the fact that "yellow" eyes exist is worth citing... well, I have no answer to that, because that thought process makes no sense at all to me, since I didn't realize at all that they were a real trait in HUMANS until a couple of years ago, after I pointed out that the main character of Big Wolf On Campus had yellow eyes that "didn't look like contacts" to my mother and she said "oh yeah, I actually dated a guy who really had that eyecolor." It's not a common enough trait that everyone realizes it exists, and if they try to verify it, at current, they'd have to go through a minor rigamorale in order to discover it's correct. I'm of the mind that it's better to give them the link and make it easier for them to personally verify for themselves that it's true, than it is to make them go through that much work to find it, because I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia should be as easy to use as possible, and that that would help. Again, if they don't care about the eye colors they won't click the link; but some people will be curious, and I wanted to make it convenient for any readers who were curious enough to want to look it up. Runa27 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I left the eye color link in. I removed the link to *eye*. Ken Arromdee 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, but your actual edit summary went on and on about how it wasn't a good idea to include a link on it ("eyes", which I thought referred to my "eye color" link), which made it sound like you had removed the link entirely, not just edited the link.
If you look at my edit summary from before yours - which is exactly when it's noted that the link was added - you'll notice that I used the CORRECT (eye color) link in my edit summary. Therefore it was a typo in the actual article itself's link that I somehow didn't catch; NOT a "random link" added just because, which again, is EXACTLY what your edit summary implies. Again, your edit summary was more than a little confusing, and did not at all make it clear that it was an edit correcting the spelling of a link as opposed to completely removing a link. I apologize for my mistake and for snapping at you as well, but your edit summary WAS confusing, and it DID imply something more than "somebody misspelled their link, and among other things, I fixed that". Check your own phrasing if you don't believe me:
Tweaks. And contrary to popular belief, you're not supposed to link to random terms; it's very unlikely that enough people reading this would want to know more about eyes, that we need an eye link
Bolding mine. That's what I can't help but refer to as snarky, and there's no real call for being snarky, especially in light of my edit summary that actually did say I was linking "eye color", and NOT that I was linking "eye", which I should think would clear up ANY doubt about what happened i.e. that it was a misspelling/typo in the edit, and not me "contrary to popular belief... [thinking it was a good idea to] link to random terms". If you're going to be slightly snarky about other people's edits, you probably ought to read what their edit summary is first. :\ And if you DID read it first, then I STILL don't see why you felt the need to be snarky about it, because then it just seems petty (I'm assuming of course that you just never looked at the edit history, since it would be equally bad of me not to AGF on some level, and I doubt you're that petty, since I like to think that people who make good edits - which yours seem to be - are less likely to be petty in that way). As a matter of fact, if it hadn't been for the exact phrasing of that edit summary, I probably wouldn't have slapped that big 'ol mistake-riddled rant on this page.
Also, I was not calling you "obviously totally clueless about what I'm doing", I just assumed that like any editor, you occasionally - but NOT intentionally - made a small little mistake or (to me, at the time) odd decision in an attempt to improve an article. . Also, I assumed at the time that you weren't thinking about it in terms of "citation", since I think a lot of people don't always think of Wikipedia articles as "good citations" or even citations so much as a link to related material, since they often have a tendency to change frequently (case in point: the link to the page about the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the Dixie Chicks page, which may or may not even mention Natalie Maines' controversial comments about it - or rather, may or may not mention them in every version of the page - but which was obviously a strongly-related topic since it was about the thing she was criticizing in the first place. I myself wouldn't probably think of that as a "citation" so much as a reference to a closely-related subject). I apologize if it came off like that, but please don't put words in my mouth. :|
I DID "check", by the way; but the link wasn't in the position I expected it to be in at first because I'm viewing it now on a different computer than the one I've been using to edit WP the most (which is at work, and does not have the stupid "widescreen" display that this one does. Why I bought this thing with the "widescreen" display, I'm not entirely sure). Also, again, your edit summary, as a point of fact, mentioned nothing about "fixing a typo" or "fixing a link", which of course naturally led me to believe that you had instead removed the link entirely that you had complained about. Next time, please be specific in your edit summaries as to what you're actually doing, more than just the reason behind it. Your feelings or opinions or reasoning e.g comments on other people's edits and reasoning for your own changes are really more appropriately housed on the article's Talk page than in the edit summary, I think. This whole minor conflict here wouldn't have happened if you had simply said "also, changed link from eye to eye color" or something very similar to that, somewhere in the edit summary.
I do thank you, however, for responding fairly calmly (really calmly, considering :P), for clearing things up, for correcting my typographically impaired link, and for posting a note to my Talk page as well, since I hadn't put your Talk page on my Watchlist yet, and got the message immediately after you posted it there; and I apologize for my mistake and the rant above. Just promise to be a just a little bit clearer in your edit summaries, and I'll promise not to jump to conclusions and rant endlessly on your Talk page, how's that sound? :P Runa27 06:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are still jumping to conclusions and ranting endlessly about something I didn't do.
The reason you got the impression that I completely removed the link rather than fixing a typo is that I did completely remove a link. My edit summary didn't say I was "fixing a typo" or "fixing a link" because I wasn't. The link that I removed that pointed to "eye" was in a completely separate part of the article than your eye color link and probably has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Sheesh. Ken Arromdee 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
1.)Apologies. You're right, there were two eye-related links on the page, and mine is not the one you edited. I also agree that linking to "hair" and "eye" are a bit much in that section, since they don't really serve a purpose, being so general; hair and eye are common words in the English language, and shouldn't need clarification/definition, which is usually what internal links are used for, of course.
2.)HOWEVER, your edit summary still was a little vague; I do apologize for snapping (I really should stop editing the Wiki in the middle of the night after only four hours' worth of sleep...), but, seeing as there were not one but multiple eye-related links (in at least two different sections; note that your summary does not mention which section the link was removed from. "Removed 'eye' link from Traits; it was superfluous", for instance, would provide 100% clarity, and actually take less characters than the actual edit summary you wrote did). (Plus, on a side note: you actually didn't say you "removed" a link, either, to be technical. It implies that, but it doesn't state that, which still ended up being confusing)
I actually did not see that link either, probably because who would look for it in that section (which sort of proves it to be superfluous above all else, I suppose :P)? Also, IIRC, I put in the eye color link, but not the link to eye, and did it recently, too; so, when another editor made a change that referenced a change which sounded like it was removing or denigrating something incredibly close to what I just edited, but in a long enough summary that it's at least close to the character limit on edit summaries... and didn't explain which section it was in, or bring it up on the Talk page... +the stupidity of me editing on so little sleep... well, you can see what that =, right? :P I do apologize, though. Runa27 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

SPEWS article[edit]

Hey Ken, thanks fro the update to the Spam Prevention Early Warning System article.. I thought I had addressed the critiscims, but was worried about trying to find appropriate citations.. thanks for working it back into the article. Have a great day. (or eavening where I am right now. SirFozzie 06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language sources and translated quotes[edit]

Hi, Re: your remark at Talk:Vlaams Belang.

Sorry I reacted so abrubtly on the talk page, earlier today. I believe the issue you raised is an interesting question. There actually is a problem, both with translated quotes and with foreign language sources. I raised the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Foreign language sources and translated quotes.--LucVerhelst 20:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your Mediation case[edit]

The case page has been moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine, but no mediator has been selected yet. Please feel free to use the case page to discuss possible solutions with eachother. Good luck to all the involved parties. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken, we really should just stop responding to Schrodinger82, though I am in agreement with you, until a mediator comes in we are just wasting our breath, adding more unneeded things to the page (note that he types nearly a page of stuff every time he replies) that will be it less likely that a mediator will want to take the case. Finally it's clear that we aren't going to convince him of our view on the way he's applying WP:RS, and he isn't going to convince us. PPGMD 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Filler[edit]

Filler isn't canon, it wasn't written by the author, the authors word if FACTUAL anything else isn't. It is fiction made up by someone other then the author, in this case the animation company. Why I removed that sentence from the Zoro page.

There ARE ways of getting filler info on a page... But you cannot say 'filler' and then go ahead and use it as facts and expect it not to be deleted/edited. We know what you wrote was true, but the fact you said 'filler G8 arc' meant it had to go. If you must write filler info, back it up by statments from the NON-canon stuff first, don't include anywhere the word 'filler' at all nor what arc it came from... Or if possible write:

  • Note: Anime only.

Its like Nico Robin with musicals - storyline wise we have one filler TV special to back it up. Outside that... Nothing. Angel Emfrbl 17:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ken... If you must reply to this, put it on my discussion page. Not my userpage. Angel Emfrbl 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine Arbitration[edit]

I am escalating the case with Bowling for Columbine to arbitration, please give your statments if any here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bowling_for_Columbine PPGMD 21:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Publisher? not me![edit]

Hi Ken, it seems you have rvt. That is the wonder of Wikipedia where consensus is status quo. Just learning. 203.97.2.34 05:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Schrodinger82 is banned from Bowling for Columbine and related pages and talk pages for one year. This may be repealed if the Arbitration Committee feels that his editing of other topics demonstrates significantly improved understanding of Wikipedia's core principles. Violations of the article ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Image replaceability guidelines[edit]

Ken,

You might be interested, re your comments on this issue elsewhere, in looking over the image-replaceability guidelines I've been drawing up.

And you never answered my question from a year and a half ago (see near top). Are you that Arromdee? Daniel Case 03:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

GD-ROM Production and you removing it[edit]

Hey you may not be in the Dreamcast scene and all but the site DCS is a respected site which, by its petitions has changed how things are ported and stuff. 99.9% of the time their info is correct, they say they have sources on the inside which they are unable to reveal atm. Its hard to explain since you may not know much about the scene but DCS is a very trustworthy site. --Elven6 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


DCS is like the CNN of Dreamcast, publisher sites would not contain this news since they are not looking at the DC anymore, and IGN's DC site is a joke! The article mentions something about sources if you look now. --Elven6 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WHATS WRONG WITH YOU?!?! IGN is reporting production is halting aswell, they don't pull info out their asses. --Elven6 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ken, please help us out[edit]

You sound like a very level-headed voice with regard to the libel issues on the Free Republic article. Please participate to a greater extent. The people who "own" the article now are putting Wikipedia at serious risk of a libel lawsuit from Jim Robinson, who has already been proven to enjoy suing people and organizations that say bad things about Free Republic. Dino 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ken, thanks for your input on the Free Republic Talk page. Please keep up the good work. I think what this dispute needs is a fresh perspective like yours. The concerns you've expressed were right on the mark. Dino 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies[edit]

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies

In December I revived the discussion about merging the notability guidelines for Companies & Corporations into Organizations, with simplified text reducing the confusion of all of the special circumstances, which now reads like the US Tax Code. In mid-January I proposed that we make a decision by the end of January, and move to developing the text. The vote is now open at Talk Companies and Corporations.

--Kevin Murray 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your recent post to the living persons noticeboard. I wasn't sure where to find the policy on birthdays of minor living persons. You helped out a lot. I don't understand where the other person was coming from, it's a strange world sometimes. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic ArbCom[edit]

Recently you were involved in a discussion about the Free Republic article on the WP:BLP Noticeboard. That article is now the subject of an Arbitration Committee proceeding here. You may comment there on the content dispute you discussed and its resolution if you choose to do so. Thank you. Dino 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested[edit]

... in the discussion about "Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy." The goal is to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic resource, and protect Wikipedia from civil liability. The consensus appears to be that WP:BLP should be modified to include ongoing enterprises. What do you think? Please add your comments to the existing discussion on this page. Dino 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice[edit]

Nicely put. Congradulations, you've managed to put things far more clearly to a few people than what i've managed to do in months of argueing with them =P. Think that really nailed it. --`/aksha 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move at Case Closed[edit]

I write to you because I have read your contributions for the RfC for the name of the article Case Closed/Detective Conan (Currently archived at Talk:Case Closed/Name dispute discussions#Comments. A page move request has been made to move the page (and 11 related pages) to Detective Conan; please comment it on Talk:Case Closed#Requested Move.--Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 13:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere[edit]

Ken, thank you for your comments on Richard Gear BLP. I made a new proposed text for the Richard Gere article, and was wondering if you would confirm it's suitability with regards to any implications...

In April 1994 the French weekly tabloid Voici said that the marriage was a sham, that Gere "preferred men", that Crawford "played at ambiguity with her female pals" and that their union of convenience was about to end. [4] In May, 1994, Gere and Crawford took a full-page ad out in the London Times, announcing that, 'We are heterosexual and monogamous and take our commitment to each other very seriously. Reports of a divorce are totally false. We remain very married. We both look forward to having a family.' [5] In the following months it weas claimed that Gere was linked romantically to Uma Thurman and a british model. The couple contined to deny their marriage was in trouble. On Dec 1, the couple released a brief statement announcing their separation, calling it a "personal and painful decision". [6]

If you could comment on the main page, [7] I would be very grateful. Sparkzilla 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Application of IAR[edit]

I concur with Demong, it is an excellent use of the principle and you might consider promoting this use as an example on the relevant page. I have, of course, disputed the effect on the article and WP but still maintain that it was an entirely appropriate use of it. Notwithstanding our differences in context, I salute you. LessHeard vanU 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (well, I wasn't going to say that on the Gere talkpage, was I?)

BLP and Aiken[edit]

Thanks for deleting those passages in the Aiken entry. Thirteen archived talk pages and a failed cabal mediation attest to the degree of controversy over this material, and I will not be surprised if there are those who insist that the media & controversies section is now incomplete. That media & controversies section came about when someone who did not edit the Aiken entry proposed it for good article status. It was reviewed by Davodd, who subsequently placed a bias tag on the entry here. At that time, the entry already included what we call "the paragraph", arrived at through much debate: Aiken has been the subject of gay jokes....But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." The word tabloid in "the paragraph" hid a piped link to the JP entry. Davodd, who is an admin, insisted that more controversies be added, and he was specific, hence the creation of that section. You can view the debate in Archive 13 of the Aiken Talk page, beginning with the To Do section, through to the end of that archive. The good article review is here, Davodd's explanation is here, and specifics as to what should be included are here. Things have changed at Wikipedia since then, especially when it comes to BLP, but I'll be really surprised if this stands without argument. Note for example this August 2006 edit/edit comment on the Aiken page by an editor who edited the JP entry as recently as a few days ago. Will he let your edits stand when he sees them? I hope you will be willing to support the edits you made. A comment from you on Talk:Clay_Aiken explaining your edits would be a helpful proactive move. Thank you. -Jmh123 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That time is come, and today the regular editors are being asked to defend and explain your deletions. I hope you will come to the Aiken talk page and do so. The relevant discussion begins here [8] and continues here [9]. Thanks. By the way, the article has been completely rewritten since those edits you made, and there is no longer a separate "media and controversies" section. Those have all been incorporated into the text, except for the deleted material. -Jmh123 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity[edit]

There's been talk about the coordination and co-operation of the anti-spoiler side. That may be an exaggeration, but it's painfully clear that we can shout into the woods all we want without getting anywhere without laid-out goals and viable alternatives to the present spoiler policy, nt just criticisms of it, however justified they may be. I'm open to suggestions, and feel free to reply to any others make on my talk page.

In the meantime, here's a symbol. Please keep it on your talk page, or even put it on your user page should you get one; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. --Kizor 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
Spoilertag.jpg This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

My bot code[edit]

I'd be interested in your comments on the code of my bot, which I have placed at User:Tony Sidaway/spoilers.scm.

All of the code for the bot is open source, There is nothing up my sleeve. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

DuMont[edit]

Hi Ken,

I appreciate your recent contributions to DuMont Television Network, but I feel your additions about PTEN are missplaced. In this edit you state that DuMont was the only major network to leave the air, until PTEN. Many reliable sources (Brooks and Marsh, McNeil, etc) consider PTEN a syndicator, not a network. Even those sources which state that PTEN was a network do not make the claim that it was a major network. The Prime Time Access Rule defined a broadcast network as "an entity that provides more than 15 hours of prime time programming per week on a regular basis to at least 75 percent of television households nationwide". PTEN never did that: under the government's definition, PTEN was not only not a "major" network, it wasn't a network at all, just a syndicator.

While I have no problem with sourced statements that PTEN was a network (and there are sources for this claim), I've never seen the claim that PTEN was a "major" network. This edit appears to be original research. Just who is claiming that a two-day-a-week programming service is a "major network"? This needs a citation. I have ten broadcasting books on my shelf and have read a dozen more, and no one, to my recollection, has ever claimed this. Further, you placed your new addition right in front of a previously-added citation, which makes it look like the old citation verifies what you're saying. It doesn't.

You are welcome to add content to the article; I'm jazzed that people are getting interested in working on the DuMont article. But all content must be correct, and sourced to reliable sources. No authority has stated PTEN is a major network, and consensus on WP:TVS is that PTEN just barely could be considered a network (but not a major one, per the PTAR), and so I have reverted your edit. I'll also note that discussion of PTEN's household reach (!) certainly does not belong on the DuMont article: this is how Wikipedia articles degrade, by people adding in random things from other articles and not focusing on the topic of the article when adding other "factoids" (like "PTEN had, ats peak, 177 stations covering 93% of the USA; if this is enough to make a network "major", then the next one was PTEN"). What does the reach of a television network (or programming service) in 1993 have to do with a different television network in 1950? How does adding this in help the reader understand anything about the DuMont Television Network? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why you said that discussion established it wasn't a major network, when I couldn't find any such discussion. There was discussion about whether it counts as a network at all, but none of that discussion came to any conclusion about major versus minor status. You may claim that since it barely counted as one at all, it must be minor, but that would be your own conclusion not supported by consensus.
What does the reach of a television network (or programming service) in 1993 have to do with a different television network in 1950?
The point is that if you define a major network by reach or number of stations, it's a major network just by common sense, and therefore the next major network to shut down after DuMont. If "major" status is relevant at all, this is relevant. I would rather not put it in; I was trying to come to a compromise by pointing out that it's major by one definition but not by another, and that therefore PTEN may or may not be the next major network to shut down depending on what definition you use. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That is original research, Ken. Your definition of "major network" ("it's a major network just by common sense") cannot be used without a reliable source. When you find a reliable source stating that PTEN was a major network, let me know. Until then, you addition cannot go in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Requiring a source for a claim that something covering 93% of the USA might fit one definition of "major" is an abuse of NOR. It would be like asking for sources that "a few" episodes of DuMont programs are available on DVD, that "almost all" its programming was destroyed, that "few stations" carried DuMont programming, or that Dumont holds an "important place" in American television history because of the Golden Spike (the source's link is bad but you can Google it; it doesn't make any such direct statement about DuMont). Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No, Ken. We have sources which state that almost all DuMont programs were destoyed, and that a few episodes survive. What we don't have is any source stating that PTEN was a major network: PTEN did not have the programming hours of ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX: it was specifically excluded from the government's network list, and there are many reliable sources which list it as a syndicator, not a network. The only person claiming that it was a major network is you. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The statements aren't footnoted, except for the "important place" remark, and the source for that one does *not* state that Dumont has an "important place" in television history. By your reasoning, qualifiers like "a few" and "important" require sources, and you haven't given any. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Bizarre. You turn a discussion of your incorrect and incoherent original research edits into a discussion of "important place", ignoring the fact that no one has called PTEN a major network. As you clearly do not want to be reasonable, I will take this up at WT:TVS. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice[edit]

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

your edit[edit]

your edit seems to have removed some content diff - Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bieber[edit]

Hi - please see the link to the edit protected request - there was and imo still is no consensus for a separate legal problems section - if you oppose the edit request please post your opposition on the talk page - this will stop it being actioned and return the issue to discussion seeking a new consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

BLP Barnstar.png The BLP Barnstar
Awarded to Ken Arromdee, for consistent and watchful services to BLP policy. JN466 11:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

typo[edit]

Hey, Ken. I happened to notice where you wrote "no qualifier about 'no editor closing the deletion'" on WT:Articles for deletion/Tahir Abbas (3rd nomination), pasted from Sandstein's talkpage. I believe you meant to type "no editor opposing the deletion". It confused me for a moment, so I nearly changed it, but it always feels a bit rude to change other people's posts. You'd probably rather do it yourself. (Or not, of course. Entirely up to you.) Excellent catch on the recent change of the deletion policy! Bishonen | talk 22:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Arbitration Committee RfC[edit]

I have started one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. If you would like to add yourself as a certifying party and perhaps make a statement, it would be appreciated. Also, if you would like to change the formatting a bit, please feel free. This is my first RfC creation and this also isn't a common type of RfC, so I used a generalized format. SilverserenC 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism[edit]

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, BeCritical 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom RfC[edit]

Trying to get some path set here for how to proceed on the ArbCom RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Ken Arromdee. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nature of the disruption[edit]

Found the discussion - [10] here is a late (maybe not last) version. (top section - I'm avoiding using the name, no sense adding more Google hits to the mess) I remember there were some off-site links somewhere that made it seem very plausible he was indeed 17 when blocked, which was well in line with some of the juvenile ways of speaking he had used. He strongly favored "lolicon" even while vigorously denouncing pedophiles, and I recall one of the admins said he'd actually been blocked for anti pedophile ranting, but then that was disputed. The ironic part is that the administrators knew that he was currently editing (and is to this day) as a name with "loli" in it, and during that conversation he said he wanted to change his account name, now that he's older, to get rid of the "loli" part, which would seem believable enough if he's gotten to the age where this is no longer a cute way of expressing attraction toward his classmates... but apparently no admin was interested in allowing that to happen ... anyway, I think that sticking someone with that kind of block message should be avoided even if we thought they were a pedophile, let alone if not, because that's the kind of thing - both potentially libelous and looking like an official decision of the site - that seems to just beg Wikipedia to get sued for big money, and besides, we're not God. (There's one other editor who comes up in a search for that particular mark of shame on his account, but I haven't examined his situation at all) This is another example of the weird paralysis and dysfunction about the WP:Child protection policy that I've commented on previously - what kind of bizarre interpretation of the existing text or any possible variation on it would work out like this? Wnt (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest[edit]

I knew your name rung a bell. We were both pretty engaged in the RfC on WP:COI regarding "intractable COI" though with opposite viewpoints. You might be interested in this editnotice/Talk page template proposal.

You will probably have a much different viewpoint on what the template should contain and I'm waiting for the Bright Line debate to come up, but I do feel most editors would like COIs to "slow their roll" at least and PR editors themselves could do with some more straightforward instructions.

Maybe I'll see you around. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:George Maharis#Re-add "arrest"?[edit]

If you are interested in this person's biography, join in discussion by clicking above link. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Reed[edit]

You are missing the point. These statements in Reed's biography identify no one and accuse no one -- they merely make clear that Reed's body of work focuses on the fact of her believing herself raped and reacting to that belief.

You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction that SILENCES this woman and IGNORES the writings/work that she most identifies with, by censoring out all references to her work EVEN THOUGH THESE REFERENCES DO NOT IDENTIFY OR LIBEL ANYONE.

The individual in question has the right to sue Reed for libel and in fact has (though he will have an uphill battle persuading a jury to ignore his four taped confessions to the crime). All of that is beside the point. Reed self-identifies as a feminist writer particularly focused on the topic of rape. You should not erase this central and critical facet of her work. You have no justification for doing so, and the cited language certainly does not provide such justification, since no one -- neither Reed nor anyone else -- is identified as "accused of a crime." Would you likewise edit Oprah Winfrey's biography to hide her report that she was incestuously raped as a child?

Reed's rapist is trying to rape her again, by silencing her. And you are colluding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.172.23 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re your posting at Jimbo's[edit]

Rather than your take on the matter, this looks to me like the original poster could just be engaging be libelous gossip. I accordingly deleted the original post, and your post at Jimbo's pointing to it, which greatly increased the visibility of this possibly proplematic data, and requested oversight for the original post (but not yours).

Obviously situations are like are difficult to asses correctly and it could be that I'm dead wrong and you're dead right, but looking below the original poster's edit show that a couple editors determined that it is extremely likely that the BLP article has the info that BLP subject wants it to have and has given to the public, regardless of what some other person might think regarding biological paternity or their knowledge of family secrets or whatever trumping that.

Am I missing something here? Herostratus (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ken Arromdee. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
Message added 01:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Ross HillTalkNeed Help? • 01:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg answered there. Thanks, -- Ross HillTalkNeed Help? • 02:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Checking in.[edit]

Hello Ken, thanks for responding to the BLP. I'm personally curious, how familiar are you with the Chopra subject matter? Reasonable question, not trying to goad you. Before i landed this gig, I never read Dr. Chopra's books and never took much of an interest. I'm more of a researcher and I am just facilitating an archive (which is how I came to meet Dr Chopra). I just wanted to share this with you because I assumed many of the things you do before I was familiar with his work. One of my challenges in my work in building the archive is distinguishing the many labels Dr. Chopra has on him. I was very surprised to actually find the level of participation at the medical mainstream level with Dr Chopra and it was a bump on the head for me to learn that many of these labels are products of almost 30 years of being a pop culture phenomenon making it very difficult to see the forrest for the trees. I hope you will be open minded reviewing these sources as they come in.

I think many of the criticisms of Dr. Chopra are genuine and need to be heard too, I'm not trying to cover them up. Rather, if those criticisms are put in the perspective of larger and more notable facts around his biography, I think both Fringe and BLP can be satisfied and I want everyone to have a really good article here. It's challenging, I know. I'm not the enemy sir! SAS81 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In relation to recent BLP/N thread in which you made a comment[edit]

If you have the time, please comment on [11] and [12]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard[edit]

Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).