User talk:Stemonitis/Archive15

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 17 2007 and June 16 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Can we establish guidelines for use of categories?

Hi. I don't think you and I have ever had a difference of opinion since I first started editing, but it looks like we may have one now. The way I had always operated was that if a topic was significant enough to be mentioned in an article, then if that topic was itself the subject of a category, then it was appropriate to include the article in the category - with only the one caveat that it was at an appropriately inclusive/exclusive rank. So, for a particular set of examples on the ant page, there is a very large section of the page dealing with ant symbioses. I honestly don't see why having the ant article included in the category "Symbiosis" is inappropriate, then; it is a prominent component of the article, and I'm not sure that all of the examples of symbiosis listed in ant are in fact discussed in other articles. In other words, are you sure that by de-categorizing the ant article, you have not removed the one place where these examples of symbiosis can be tracked down via the symbiosis category? In contrast, the recent placement of ants in the category "Insect vectors of plant disease" is NOT defensible; there is no mention of this anywhere in the article - no links, no citations. Do we need to establish some formal criteria for when to categorize and when not? Peace, Dyanega 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the general practices are fairly well established (WP:CAT and related pages), and I admit that I may have been a little hasty about the symbioses, since, as you point out, ants are well-known in that regard. It's not my field of expertise, so if it turns out that only a small group of ants are notably symbiotic, then the category should only go there, otherwise we end up replicating the categories all the way up the taxonomic hierarchy. Fungus-growing ants should definitely be categorised as symbiotic.

No doubt some ants do act as vectors of phytopathogens, but they're certainly not renowned for it as a group. Sometimes categories get added and nobody dares to remove them because they assume they must be true; what matters is of course not whether it's true, but whether it's important. I am sure that most ants are not invasive and are not pests, and to classify them as such would be very misleading. Solenopsis invicta may be both of those, but not the whole family.

So yes, Category:Symbiosis may be appropriate after all, but I'm not so sure about the others. I don't think this is really a difference of opinion, because our philosophies of categorisation seem to be similar. --Stemonitis 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tessa Horst

Thank you for correcting my spelling error on Tessa Horst. I have not seen that TV show but follow the results every week on the internet (results and summary written on the ABC-TV website). Isn't that odd to follow another country's TV that way? Thanks again for your edit so that I don't look like an idiot (or at least, it's hidden)VK35 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Article hen

First you didn't like the tense, now you're telling me to discuss it. I don't mind, but you're clearly an article hen beh, perhaps not.Yeago 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I was right about the article hen thing. Was I drunk when I read and complied with your suggestion to move sodium chloride instead of edible salt to salt? Or am I drunk now that I see you're disagreeing with even that. Are you just being a nosepicker? I did everything you said--even beginning a discussion on this non-controversial, minor issue. This much over the question of whether sodium chloride should redirect to salt?! I'd hate to touch a politics article you frequent, that's for sure.Yeago 13:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether you were drunk or not, but I think I can confidently state that you have misunderstood me. I said that I could "see a case" for sodium chloride being moved to salt, not that I necessarily thought it should happen. I also think that, even if articles get moved, salt should go through a transitionary phase of being a disambiguation page, to allow people to get used to the new framework. This is not a minor peripheral article with ony a few insignificant meanings, and lots of people will habitually link to it without checking the links first. This is not an uncontroversial issue, and it is not minor, despite your assertions to the contrary. And let me make clear that I am not necessarily opposed to the move, but that I do believe very strongly that a discussion is needed first. (On a minor point of protocol, it looks like there are now two requests going on at different locations about basically the same issue; it would be better if one pointed to the other.) I shall take your avian comments as constructive criticism; the only other interpretation would be as incivility, which I'm sure you wouldn't stoop to. Having said that, it is unclear how it applies since I am not preventing changes, and they are not articles I have had any previous dealings with, as it seemed you had previously realised. Have a little patience, and be prepared to discuss your intended improvements, and everything will work out fine. --Stemonitis 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think by your logic and your length of words that you are making a mountain over a molehill. Its also clear by the discussion "Request to move" that the enormous importance you're placing on this issue is an incredibly minority opinion. You are preventing changes by introducing over-beaurocracy into what should have been a simple move. That is the definition of an article hen. You're going to sit over the eggs and talk too much until you are shoo'ed off the result of this vote, and the conclusion that should have came all along, does. No, its not incivility, its observation and if you can take it as const/crit then all the better. But that requires you actually entertain it which I doubt you are ready to do.

Side note Re: article hen: as for wikipedia having no binding decisions, you've clearly swallowed the pill. Its generally important for Administrators to use rhetoric like that in order to justify the calcification which they persistently introduce into the system.

Also, at the bottom of it I'm sure you're a decent human being and please believe I am to. I restrict my judgments of you to your actions at Salt and Article hen and no further.Yeago 14:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And all this from someone who would be dictator!? --Stemonitis 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A reply of no content.Yeago 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but it might suggest that I place more weight on establishing and maintaining consensus than someone who wishes to wield absolute power. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is much less a dictatorship. The procedures exist to gauge and act on the consensus. While boldness can be a good quality, requesting that time be taken to get things right is also desirable. All I have ever said on this matter is that I wasn't sure about the plans and that I thought they should be discussed first. My edit to your essay was a genuine attempt to improve it; you seemed to believe that Wikipedia had case law. It hasn't, and nor should it. It works by consensus. My edits have been to make that consensus transparent and to act on it where it is clear. You see a mountain, calcification, and chickens; I see a discussion, an encyclopaedia which continues to grow, and a less than helpful metaphor. Five days' pause really isn't that much, and the various processes are there for a reason (see WP:PII for a more coherent essay than I could write about it). --Stemonitis 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... well I can validate that and hopefully you can validate my actions as attempting to be bold, which I was. As for your improvement, perhaps you'll take another gander.Yeago 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... looking at the result of Salt move I'm sad there isn't a Beaucracy Barnstar =( Yeago 03:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Several other people expressed similar concerns to mine, and they are entirely reasonable concerns. If you think that the situation is entirely of my making then you are sorely mistaken. I have had no dealings with the article for quite some time, and still you come whingeing to me. There are better ways for you to contribute to the encyclopaedia than that. Anyway, you got the result you wanted. Anyone else would have walked away happy. --Stemonitis 06:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Several others express similar concerns? See pattern =). The re-think blaming the observer.Yeago 06:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You have now edited my talk page as much as your own. Others might interpret that as akin to persecution. Seriously, if you've got nothing useful to say to me, go away. --Stemonitis 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OoOoO threats. Bye!Yeago 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident move

Hi, regarding your decision to close the discussion to move Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident to US Air Force reports on the Roswell UFO incident, I wonder if you could drop by the talk page and explain your rationale? The proposal has only been there for 5 days, and only 4 people have had a chance to comment on it, so it seems somewhat premature. Cheers, Martin 20:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Five days is the normal duration. Everybody had the chance to comment, but only four people did; that's a very different thing. --Stemonitis 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category: Marylins in Cornwall

Hi, I see you have removed a number of articles from this category with the comment 'poor choice of categroy'. Could you explain why it is a poor choice? Thank you. DuncanHill 12:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The creation of a category should be related to its need. The category "Marilyns of Cornwall" was a subcategory of Category:Hills of Cornwall and Category:Marilyns of England. Even if all possible articles existed, these categories would still not contain enough members to warrant their being divided into smaller subcategories. It may be that Category:Marilyns of Scotland or Category:Marilyns of Ireland would need to be subdivided at some point in the future, but the same will never happen in England or Wales. Categories should not be created if they will only ever contain half a dozen articles. The only reason that Category:Marilyns of the Isle of Man exists is because it is not part of a larger political unit, and I could even imagine that category being subsumed into Category:Marilyns and removing the smaller category. --Stemonitis 12:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. I do think it would have been helpful have had that explained at the time though. There is also a procedure for the deletion of cats, which helps ensure that people interested in a cat get a chance to understand the reasons for deletions. DuncanHill 12:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the procedures, but I asumed that a category which will only ever contain five articles and which attempts to subdivide categories of 130 and 8 articles respectively was very unlikely to end up anything other than deleted. It was perhaps hasty, but was in the best interests of the project. --Stemonitis 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your countless reverts of arthropod-related articles from vandalism! --Crustaceanguy 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Now I'm going to have to make myself a trophy cabinet :-) --Stemonitis 07:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hey Stemonitis,

First I was using the right menu and tried Community Portal; wow - information overload; projects, bulletin board, WikipediaWeekly .. so i quickly left the page as i think there was not what I was looking for ;o)

• Then i thought; okay i need contact so why not Contact us (on the left as well); under For Wikipedia editors i could not find what i was looking for; i was simply looking for an admin or a page where i could post a question where everybody could see it ...
• next thing; "old" Wikipedia-thing; i want a Admin so WP:A - that how the shortcut on de is ;o) ... okay wrong so Wikipedia:Sysop - i wanted to write it simply on the talk page and leave; but then i saw Request assistance - wow again information overload .... but i tried and finally found Wikipedia:Requested moves ... acutally i wonder how a new Wikipedian could have found this page. I could not even find a simple "Tell me your problem"-page
• ... i think KISS - Keep it short and simple is the solution; less administrative pages. - it makes it more easy to find and for contributers it would mean less pages they have to watch ...Sicherlich ^Post 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Stemonitis, thanks for trying to help with the attoney generals of Colombia. I'll keep asking for legal help until someone finally gets it.

I saw you are interested on plants. I started this article; Inírida flower and I was wondering if you have any information related to this plant.--I am greener than you! ^{(Lima - Charlie - Over)} 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I had seen that article before, and I was stumped then. Given so little information, it isn't easy to find more. Also, it looks like it's effectively a disambiguation page between two species, neither of which has an article on Wikipedia.

(a few minutes later) Actually, I've just found out that both genera are in the family Rapateaceae, which might be a helpful nugget of information, and it looks like it's Schoenocephalum, not Schoenocephalium. It soon develops into a major project, because [Rapateaceae]] needs to be completely rewritten (it says nothing about the plants yet, but four paragraphs of fairly irrelevant nomenclature). --Stemonitis 06:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pu-erh tea VS. Pu-erh

Could you see the this Pu-erh talk again and explain further your contest? It would be much appreciated. ~I'm anonymous

"Contesting" a move request merely indicates that it cannot be dealt with as uncontroversial; it should not stop anyone from making a full move request. As to my reasons, I think they are clear enough, and my thinking hasn't changed. The Pu-erh case is not about disambiguation from cartoon characters, not really. It's about the usual name for the beverage, and it is normally called "Pu-erh tea", not just "Pu-erh". That others have also come to this conclusion suggests that this is indeed the case, which in turn suggests that a move request would be unlikely to succeed, but that needn't prevent you from making it. --Stemonitis 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture request

hi stemonitis, i work for an german film production and have a question to two of your fotos. is it possible to use the fotos as a prop in our german tv-series? please contact me: postmortem.ausstattung2-at-sonypictures-tv.de. thanks kristin osterhoff

Death Wish 4:The Crackdown

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Death Wish 4:The Crackdown, by Count de Ville, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Death Wish 4:The Crackdown fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

redirect that is no longer needed

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Death Wish 4:The Crackdown, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Death Wish 4:The Crackdown itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Death Wish V:The Face of Death

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Death Wish V:The Face of Death, by Count de Ville, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Death Wish V:The Face of Death fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

redirect that is no longer needed

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Death Wish V:The Face of Death, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Death Wish V:The Face of Death itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese spider crab

Hey, I'm just having a little fun. Plus it's true! Look at the Giant Enemy Crab. You have to flip it over and attack its weak spot for massive damage. P.S. I want to be a biologist too! ;) ForestAngel 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'd reverted that article as often as I have for the same puerile additions of meaningless text, you'd have got bored of the joke too. It wasn't even that funny the first time round, and the article has had to be protected to prevent the repeated idiocy before. There are better ways to contribute than that. --Stemonitis 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shenton

Thanks for formatting my article on Shenton, I was not quite sure what to put!

Llamafish 09:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keane moved to Keane (band)

Why was this moved? WP:RM states "If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as 'no consensus'." From what I can see (Talk:Keane#Requested move) there was no discussion. How can a consensus be drawn from nothing? If I'm missing something, please show me. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If one person wants a move and nobody opposes it, then the move is unopposed and the best guess is that that's the underlying consensus. It's not the ideal method, but in cases where nobody opposes the proposal and it seems reasonable, there's no reason why a move request shouldn't be fulfilled. --Stemonitis 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And Now for Something Completely Different

Many thanks for completing that move - and (I presume, as they're all cleaned up) fixing up all of those nasty double redirects that were related with it! SkierRMH 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

'Twas but a few. I had some which were much much worse than that. And you're welcome. --Stemonitis 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for returning my talk page to its original name, a few friends of mine know my password and one moved my talk page in an attempt to play a joke on me, when I tried to move it back it wouldn't work for some reason, rather then ask for help I just created another user profile, now I can operate with two profiles it seems. BassxForte 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Alpheidae

Thanks for removing "The heat generated by the snap exceeds 114 degrees Fahrenheit (No Source Cited", I was about to do it last night but got distracted by my kids. Mccluremr

WP:RM changes that break an entry

I just thought I'd let you know that you've made some changes [1] and [2] that (I'm assuming unintentionally) broke the entry for The Beatles 1967-1970 at WP:RM. I've fixed the entry, but the entry has been broken for a few days. Perhaps you're using some automated tool that mistakenly "fixes" the entry for some reason. Anyway, I just wanted to point this out, in case it causes problems for other entries as well. Have a nice day. --PEJL 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed the problem in other instances, but I hadn't realised that it had occurred there. It was entirely unintentional, and I have since fixed the problem, so it shouldn't be happening again. A browser add-on was recognising numbers and (for no good reason) stripping them out. --Stemonitis 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hall of the Mountain King

On Talk:Hall of the Mountain King (album), you wrote "This article has been renamed from Hall of the Mountain King (album) to Hall of the Mountain King as the result of a move request. There is no other article titled "Hall of the Mountain King", and a hatlink will direct people to In the Hall of the Mountain King without any problems. --Stemonitis 06:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)", but the move back to the base name does not appear to have occurred. Should it have? Thanks, -- JHunterJ 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did make the move, but it has been undone since by a no doubt well-meaning but inexperienced user. I'll put it back. --Stemonitis 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- JHunterJ 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetic insertion Move

• I saw that you (appropriately) moved the Genetic deletion article to Deletion (genetics). However, someone has moved the Insertion (genetics) article to Genetic insertion. I brought up the idea of a revert on the talk page. Could you weigh in, and possible move the page back? Thanks. Cmcnicoll 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Insertion (genetics) currently has a single-line history, and redirects to genetic insertion, so it should be possible for any registered user to move the article back. --Stemonitis 07:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting/contesting move

Due to some user's objections, a move was not implemented, despite other editors' and an administrator's comment that the opposing side has not presented any convincing arguments. What step is necessary from here? Mediation? --Shamir1 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is about the 2006 Lebanon war, I would suggest that the only course of action which will not lead to immense ill will is to forget about it. There have been too many move requests already, regardless of which side you are on. The majority opinion seems to be in favour of the current situation, and against any further attempts to change it. I've never had any dealings with mediation, but this doesn't seem to be a situation which can be mediated. Contentious statements can be re-worded in a way that is acceptable to a greater number of people, but a title is either one thing or another. Perhaps return to the topic in a few months if it still bothers you, unless you really want to stir up a hornets' nest of acrimony and bile. --Stemonitis 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the opposing side proved the current title (which was changed without consensus or reference to a sinlge outside source from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) passed the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), it would be simpler to forget about it, otherwise, one could only continue what is right. =) No administrator has found their case to be reasonable. --Shamir1 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum

Hi -- your note at Talk:Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum#Requested move is a bit of a surprise, and I wondered if perhaps you'd misread the discussion between Septentrionalis and me. Both of us certainly commented that there were reasons to merge, but we both finally concluded that the merge should not take place. Septentrionalis also finally said that "the English is probably better, I agree", which is an agreement with the move. Let me know if I'm missing something. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That agreement of PMAnderson's was contingent on a very large "if". --Stemonitis 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha. OK, I understand your reasoning; I'd read it more as "if it would be correct to expand it", not that it needed to be expanded before Septentrionalis would change his opinion. Just FYI, I don't have the materials to expand it a great deal, so that probably isn't going to happen in the near term unless someone takes it on -- I don't have any of the scholarly studies of Bede that exist, and my edition doesn't discuss the manuscript history at all. I'd oppose the merge for the reasons I gave -- there may not be enough material there now, but there certainly is enough material for someone to do it at some point. Oh well, it's not a big deal. Thanks for the explanation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections can always be split out of articles later, so if you don't think you can expand it in the near future (and it doesn't seem too likely that anyone else will), then it may be better to merge, albeit temporarily. --Stemonitis 12:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jordan Galland

can you please provide me with some useful tips to cleaning up Jordan Galland? he is an amazing director and has won awards and is part of an up and coming crop of new directors/actors...thanks ever so much!! I have worked so hard and dont wish to see my work deleted :O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

WP:HELP is full of the sort of instructions you want, I think. If you have said that the subject has won awards, then the article is very unlikely to get deleted, so you needn't worry about that. --Stemonitis 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alf debate

I was just informed that you moved the Alf debate rather quickly. The matter is still rather hotly contested, and people are using your move as the basis for their unwillingness to consider alternatives. Maybe you could take a gander? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Chrissie Carnell

thanx! :O)

can you please help me!! someone vandalized a page I did for CHrissy Carnell..how do I stop this!!?? they wrote rude commments about her —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 00:39, June 8, 2007 (UTC)

Contesting move

I only noticed now that there was a request to move Indie (music) to Indie music at the Requested Moves page. I wish to contest the move (as I have indicated on the talk page). Is there anything I can do besides that after the move has already been performed? Thanks. WesleyDodds 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Um..., it's a bit inconvenient, I have to say.

Not that your opinion isn't valued, but I suspect it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome if it had been expressed an hour or two earlier. The article discusses "indie music" in the text, and that does seem a more natural title than "indie (music)". It is customary to allow some time before making new move requests, so if it still bothers you in six weeks' time, perhaps you could make a new request then. I am impartial on the matter, but I can't see the consensus changing in that direction. --Stemonitis 07:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

index sorting

Hi. Fascinated by this edit ([3]). How does it work? --Dweller 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic I get quite a lot of queries about. The correct sorting of articles in categories can be quite unintuitive, particularly with the more non-standard names. The MediaWiki software sorts articles by their titles unless told otherwise, and it sorts them according to ASCII codes, not alphabetically. Now, while ASCII codes are basically alphabetically ordered, there are exceptions, and they can cause us problems. Specifically, upper-case and lower-case letters are separate, with the lower-case letters (ASCII 97–122) coming after the upper-case ones (ASCII 65-90) and separated from them by the characters "[", "\", "]", "^", "_" and "`". Also, most other punctuation comes before the upper-case letters, including the apostrophe (ASCII 39). All this means that in order to have our categories sorted the way one would expect of an encyclopaedia, we have to strip out the punctuation and have none but the first letter of each word capitalised. (It would actually be better to have it all in capital letters, e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:OREILLY, BRIAN}}, but it's much too late to start enforcing a convention like that.)

"O'Reilly" sorts before "Oates" because apostrophe comes before "a"; "MacKinnon" comes before "Macallister" because "K" comes before "a". To achieve the effect of having all the O'Reillys and the O'reillys together, and all the MacKinnons and the Mackinnons together, we have to sort them in the same way. Every other encyclopaedia sorts "O'Reilly" under O.R.E.I.L.L.Y., and so should we.

I hope that explains it; I appreciate that it doesn't seem to make much sense at first sight. --Stemonitis 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it. Thanks. --Dweller 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Crustacea as a plural of crustacean

Several times I have seen "crustacea" being used as a plural of "crustacean", as in Wiktionary [4] and the Encarta article on Dana, James Dwight: "Dana prepared reports on the zoophytes and crustacea". Is crustacea really a standard plural in English? --Crustaceanguy(t/co/cw) 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about anybody else, but I wouldn't use it that way. I would use "one crustacean", "two crustaceans", and treat "zoophytes and crustacea" as a mis-spelling for "zoophytes and Crustacea". Technically, it is a Latin plural, so some people no doubt feel tempted to use it as an English plural, even when not capitalised. The OED only accepts "Crustacea" as a capitalised noun, and not as a general plural of "crustacean", so that a sentence like "Most of the Crustacea, like insects, come forth from the eggs in a state very different from their adult form" makes it clear that they're using the formal taxon rather than a common name. --Stemonitis 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Meissen

Very well, will you accept Mediation on your conduct? If you believe it a flawless exercise in boldness, convince a third party. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In a few days time, if everything continues as it has, everything will be back the way it was. I feel you are over-reacting. My actions have followed WP:BRD precisely, with a formalised discussion due to end in a few days' time. My experience with move requests is that apparent consensus can change in the course of the five days, otherwise I would have closed the move myself already. Just give it a couple of days. --Stemonitis 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will consider; you are the second admin I have seen try this sort of thing in a few days, so the apparent pattern may be getting to me. The difference from BRD is that there has been no reversion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have considered; you are probably right. I will strike the phrase about vandalism, although I continue to believe that Meißen (except as a mention, is a disservice to our readership. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spy Kids ready to move

You can now move Spy Kids to Spy Kids (film), but make sure you read the comment I made in the discussion. Thanks! Tyty1234 08:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Spy Kids (film) is ready. You can now make the changes and move Spy Kids to Spy Kids (trilogy). Thanks! --Tyty1234 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good work in getting the new page set up so quickly! --Stemonitis 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I've done a great job myself on that article! --Tyty1234 07:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry 'bout the {{stub}} in the userpage, it was just there as a joke. Didn't realize that was on WP:USER Also, that page said you can have it as long as it is {{tl|stub}}, so can I put it back with that in it? Also, please reply on my talk page, as I tend to forget names a lot. Thanks! Deflagro 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry; it's not a major thing. When I'm going through categories, making sure everything's in the right order, I take out any user-pages. {{tl|stub}} is of course fine — include that if you like. Or you can subst: the template and strip out the category code, to achieve the same visual effect as {{stub}}, without violating WP:USER. --Stemonitis 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Probably just gonna copy it and strip out the code. Deflagro 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)