User talk:Netkinetic: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:52, 12 October 2006

Archival record for Jan 2006-May 2006

Greetings and welcome. For any compliments, concerns, constructive critiques...or just to say hello, please feel free to use this forum at your discretion. I ask only that you practice courteous civility, and uncivil comments will be immediately archived. Let's work together to build a better resource for those whom come after us. Netkinetic 06:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Barnstars are welcome!!!! ;)[reply]

================================================================================

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino writers

It's news to me that this is even expected. All I've ever been told before today was that "subst" was a specific part of some templates and not others. Bearcat 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Do kindly help me since I am doing a constructive edit. I am having problems how to properly do it the wikipedia way since I am relatively new here.

"Filipino writers" as a category is problematic since it is ambiguous. it may refer to the Philippines national language "Filipino."

The problem is, the Philippines has at least 80 languages and many of these languages have their own literatures. Using "Filipino" to describe writers and literatures from the Philippines can be controversial, ambiguous and politically incorrect. Writers in the other Philippine languages may be offended.

What I did was to move what was previously under "Filipino writers" and transfer these names under the category "Writers from the Philippines."

"Writers from the Philippines" is a more appropriate category to embrace all writers from the Philippines -- whether they are writing in that country's various literary languages: English, Filipino, Spanish, Tagalog, Ilocano, Bikol, Kapampangan, Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Kiniray-a and several others. This category does not offend those who are writing in the other Philippine languages.

There is a strong resentment towards "Filipino" language since the language was largely derived from "Tagalog." The Philippine government implemented this as a policy in 1935 during the period of Philippine Commonwealth under the United States. The creation of "Tagalog" as "Pilipino" (and later, as "Filipino") as a national language marginalized the other Philippine languages. many of these other languages in the countryside are now either dying or extinct.

Feel free to ask further questions. I am actually a scholar working on Southeast Asian Cultures and Societies so I am very familiar with the subject.

Many thanks for your concern and kind attention. - 7258 16:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Thanks. I am just struggling to learn edit summary. I was a bit confused since I discovered that writers from the Philippines and other items related to Philippine literature are quite disorganized. I am trying to find a way to make coherent and structured categorizations. There's still a lot to learn and I can only thank people like you for being around to help me. I also have very strong convictions against vandalism. I understand your concern. Thanks so much and do keep in touch should there be a need for me to be reminded or instructed further. - 7258 16:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of templates

If you nominate a template for speedy deletion, please use <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around the {{db}}. Otherwise all pages carrying the template will end up in CAT:CSD. I disagree with speedily deleting the template you nominated, I suggest you go through WP:TFD to have it deleted in the normal non-speedy way. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud van Nistelrooy

My apologies. I removed a redundant list of the clubs he played for. My mistake not to state that in the summary.

WWE Draft

Should'nt Kane be deleted from that list because he was drafted to SD

Loose Change (video)

Fighting vandals is appreciated, but do not use vandalproof for British/American spelling issues. The correct spelling is "center" not "centre" in this instance. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwing // Dick Grayson

Please vote in this Discussion --Neodammerung 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nero

Curious: Why did you move Nero (comics) to Nero (DC Comics)? Chris Griswold 11:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apostrophe

He's left anyway, but I don't need to report him: I'm an admin and I could just block him. I wouldn't, however. 1ne 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mr_Scarlet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mr_Scarlet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman

Superman ability to absorb solar energy is based on his Krypontian Hertiage. T-1000 04:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I ask that you keep an eye on the Superman and Superman's power pages, to revert Cystalb4's edits, as it is already proven that Superman has regenerative abilities. T-1000 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution process

Okay, basically, in this edit, [1] you don't really keep within the bounds of our [[WP:CIV|civility policy]. It's not best practise to threaten people, and you shouldn't really ban people from your talk page, it isn't conducive to smoothing a situation out. If you do have a problem with a user, you should seek guidance straight away. Sometimes it is possible to get frustrated when editing Wikipedia, and in those circumstances it is best to try and keep WP:COOL. An approach is to write a response, and instead of posting it, walk away for five minutes and then come back and rewrite it. Frustration is the hardest part about contributing to Wikipedia. Disputes occur frequently, especially in areas where the situation may not seem clear cut to both parties. The best advise is to stop acting, keep a cool head and keep talking. However, if that fails, rather than find yourself in a position where you lose your temper and say something you shouldn't, you should walk away. You should also consider extending a sincere apology when you have lost your temper. An apology does not have to mean you accept you were wrong in your position, only that the way you put that position across was perhaps ill-judged. We do have a dispute resolution process, and if you need help in working through the steps don't hesitate to contact me for help. Your contributions are valuable, but bear in mind all parties in an edit war must be treated equally. Steve block Talk 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reverts

I suggest you check consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Categories before reverting my work. Thanks. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that's the page where discussion takes place and decisions (like this particular one above) are made. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, I really do because I used to edit following this line. What I didn't think before but I do now as I was convinced about it, is that the most reasonable thing to do is checking one by one in order make decisions. Each case is a case. The line you follow (and I myself used to) creates doubled characters within categories while my work right now focus in eliminating this kind of thing.
One thing we do have in common is that we both work for improving the Project and related articles. Enough of foolishness, this is history. Peace. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Spectre

I know this might be a moot point given the team categories are up for deletion, but...

The article covers the entirety of the Spectre, not just Hal's period as host. Since it includes the period for Corrigan as host, during which the character was a member of the All-Star Squadron and the JSA, the cats were correctly applied.

As a side note: the continuity of this one creates a small mess. IIUC, up until Gaiman's Books of Magic, the character was nothing more than Corrigan's ghost empowered by on high. For lack of better terms, "The Spectre" was a codename used by the character Jim Corrigan. That changed with Gaiman's story. The Spectre became a character separate to Corrigan, but bound to him. It predated it's host and, with Hal and Crispus, has been shown to exist after the host has moved on.

Any way... the team cats should stick with this article, at least until the cats themselves go. — J Greb 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaman

Before you go splitting characters off into separate articles, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). Phrases like "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" are specifically mentioned as terms to avoid. CovenantD 02:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huntress, Robotman, Johnny Quick, etc

I see what you're doing now, splitting them up by character and not just code name, and wholeheartedly agree with this approach. CovenantD 02:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you know what you're doing? Superman doesn't need to be made into more articles. It was fine the way it is. And now I don't like it. Brian Boru is awesome 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm divided about this. I think Hero (alias) is okay, but ... I would have liked if we'd talked about it on a comics-proj page or something first. I'm all for being bold, but this one has massive ramifications for all the hero pages and it's a heck of a lot of work. A consensus, and maybe someone with AWB to help out would have been nice. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This way needs more discussion. We only just discussed this and couldn't come to an agreement. We do have a naming convention which all these moves is violating, so it would be best to discuss the issue before we implement it. Steve block Talk 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm just looking at the mechanics of what you have done and it appears you have violated the GFDL, the license under which all work is contributed. When you move information, or split information, you have to leave links from where in the edit summary so contributions can be attributed properly. That's why it's best to discuss ideas best, so people can point up problems and offer solutions. Steve block Talk 13:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve block,
I agree conversation would be advantegeous. I noticed Lesfer has made a series of such moves of which you have not commented on, and I simply did the same. If we are to treat each Flash as different, we should treat each Robin and Superman as different by also providing them their own article. DC Comics lists them separately, why are we different?
You had mentioned two guidelines which I was violating. I'm sorry but I fail to see a precise example of this relating to the free license, I've extracted material to produce adjacent articles but I don't believe I disgarded any contributions from fellow users. However I will review the guidelines in more depth, as they are always beneficial to incorporate into our contributions.
If there have been any violations, please WP:AGF that I was unaware of the precise mechanics involved in these guidelines as it applies to recent edits.
Additionally, you are asking that we handle each article as a separate case, however you have previously sighted the "No Rules" guideline, yet by saying we should treat each article as separate is...in fact...a rule in and of itself. If they are to be handled as exceptions, then why have a comicbook project to lend suggestions across the board?
That said, I agree that more conversation should be involved, and would ask you also invite Lesfer and others who have also follow the same naming convention I have utilized into the dialogue. Thank you for your time.

You've violated the GFDL by cutting and pasting information without providing a link. The requirements of the license mean we have to provide a history of who contributed what. By cutting and pasting information without providing a link in the edit summary you have removed the contributions from their history. I know you did this because you were unaware of how to do it, that doesn't mean I can't point out to you what you have done so that you know better next time. And I can't be everywhere, I hope you will appreciate that. This was brought to my attention, hence my comments. Forgive me if I fail to get into a semantical argument as to what constitutes a rule. And don't forget to sign your comments. Steve block Talk 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the guidance on splitting a page, Wikipedia:Summary style. Note that Whenever you break up a page, please note the split (including the page names between double square brackets) in the edit summary. Steve block Talk 15:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin

Please do not consider this as a part of a "pile-on". : )

Robin (comics) is on my watchlist. I notice that you created Robin (Dick Grayson I).

Several concerns:

1.) Roman numerals are a contrary to naming conventions
2.) There is no indication that this Robin only existed pre-crisis. (And "golden-age" is another term that should be avoided, as far as I know.)

I realise that you're trying to disambiguate between Robins for team membership, but doing this with this character causes several problems anyway:

1.) The Robin of "earth-2" (AKA Robin I, or the golden-age Robin) no longer exists in DC Universe continuity. As such, he was never a member of any DCU teams.
2.) Creating categories based on characters who no longer exist in a current chronology requires citations/sources at the very least, which means that it deserves a list, not a category.
3.) The article is merely a copy of the [[Robin (comics}]] article.

So for the above reasons, I suggest that you {{db-author}} Robin (Dick Grayson I). I'll undo the change to the Robin (comics) article for you.

Please feel free to make a list pre-crisis differences in golden-age teams' make-up. I think that that would be a great article. However, before you do, drop a note on the WikiProject to see if anyone can come up with a good name for it (I can't think of one right now). - jc37 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your enthusiasm is wonderful. It's really great to see, but you're making some big changes without knowing what the existing Wikipedia conventions are for these things. One thing you MUST do is become more familiar with Comic articles editorial guidelines. Invoking IAR is not usually appropriate until after you know the rules well enough to understand the logic behind them. You need to follow the guidelines for quite some time before understanding when to deviate from them. And when you want to try something really creative, test it with just one or two articles to get broader feedback before doing it repeatedly. Otherwise, you're sometimes going to generate resentment from the people who see themselves as wasting a lot of time "cleaning up" after you. Believe me, I've been bolder than I should have about a few things and felt embarrassed afterward. Have fun. Direct your efforts for a while in line with how those more familiar with Wikipedia are doing them, and you'll really get in the swing of things. Doczilla 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I inadvertently rubbed a couple important comics contributors wrong myself not long ago, also operating on the BE BOLD principle. I didn't cause quite as big a stir as you just caused, but that's just a matter of luck. If I hadn't had the chance to backtrack and undo my own work quickly, it might have been just as big a problem. The incident, which actually only drew a couple of people's attention before it got cleaned up, is part of what set off the most recent batch of our numerous ongoing discussions about overcategorization. I hated a category and went through ripping it up. Some people disagreed in a big way. (I still think "Fictional Americans in DC Comics" is a stupid category, but now I'll just let the process take its time while everybody weighs in on the issues. There's no hurry.) Anyway, I feel for you. You had the best of intentions. Don't worry about it. That said, nice to make your "acquaintance" (such as it is in Wiki-cyberspace). Doczilla 05:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unified discussion

Moved several related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (Feel free to revert if you wish.) - jc37 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dialogue

I know you had good faith, and I can totally get behind the Superman edits (Kal-L etc). That's an even more headache-generating mess than Nightwing. I may have jumped the gun a bit with Dick, and if so I apologize. We went through a big hassle about having him at Dick Grayson and not Nightwing, since Dick is still 'Robin' to a lot of people, and Nightwing used to be Superman (that whole drama's archived if you're in one of those moods where you find yourself reading eeeeverything - maybe that's just me). Anyway, I think you've got a good idea with a lot of the renamings, but lets take it case by case :) Hey, maybe 'Richard Grayson' for E-2 Dick? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 ==Unified discussion==
 Moved several related discussions to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion]]. (Feel free to revert if you wish.) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
+==Re: Dialogue ==
+I know you had good faith, and I can totally get behind the Superman edits (Kal-L etc).  That's an even more headache-generating mess than Nightwing. I may have jumped the gun a bit with Dick, and if so I apologize.  We went through a big hassle about having him at Dick Grayson and not Nightwing, since Dick is still 'Robin' to a lot of people, and Nightwing used to be Superman (that whole drama's [[Talk:Dick_Grayson/Archive01|archived]] if you're in one of those moods where you find yourself reading eeeeverything - maybe that's just me).  Anyway, I think you've got a good idea with a lot of the renamings, but lets take it case by case :) Hey, maybe 'Richard Grayson' for E-2 Dick? -- <font color="Green">'''[[User:Ipstenu|Ipstenu]]''' ''([[User talk:Ipstenu|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ipstenu|contribs]])''</font> 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)