User talk:Edgarde

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives
2004-05 | 2006 | 2007

Sorry

Sorry dude, I forgot. I just made that yesterday, so I wanted to check it. When I realised that I didn't sign, I just typed in my name. Now that I'm logged in, should I put my name back in? Mhavril39 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as you're signed in, it's a good idea to take credit. Thanks for explaining to me what was going on. / edg ☺ ★ 03:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pedantic"

Was this comment really necessary? It seems awfully rude and dismissive to me. I see no need to suggest that people with a different opinion are being "pedantic" for demonstrating the same degree of concern about a relatively minor issue expressed by those with whom they disagree. —David Levy 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That might a matter of perspective. I'm simply using language other editors might understand. Many editors' opinions are being handwaved on the Talk page for that template, and I'm not seeing much concern expressed for their opinions being dismissed. Is this template truly a "minor issue" for you? The broken template has certainly received its share of complaints. / edg ☺ ★ 00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, considering this edit summary, yes the term "pedantic" is entirely appropriate. / edg ☺ ★ 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "pedantic"? (I'm not being sarcastic.) It's defined as "ostentatious in one's learning" or "overly concerned with minute details or formalisms." No matter who's right, all of us are paying the same amount of attention to these details (but you don't see me calling your concerns "pedantic"). It's entirely possible for two reasonable people (or groups of people) to disagree with one another.

2. I (and others) are arguing our points, not dismissing yours. Not once did I deem opposing viewpoints "pedantic" (or similar) or scold someone expressing them.

3. How is the template "broken"? —David Levy 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons

Hi, I recently proposed that the page be merged with the main The Simpsons article, and since you were involved with the recent deletion of the similar Family Guy page, I was wondering if you would mind commenting. I am anticipating heavy opposition from some newer editors, and it would be nice to get some opinions from some more experienced ones. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really not a lot better. It has several unsourced statements and most of the entries are just "in ____ it was used" and the bulk of a lot of the sections are simply other references within the show and mentions in books specifically about The Simpsons. In other words, no real assertion of cultural significance. The two big ones - D'oh and Cheese eating surrender monkeys have their own pages, while the minor ones like Cromulent, Kwyjibo, the overlord meme and can't sleep clown will eat me can have a sentence long mention in the Simpsons article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiding {{fact}} and similar templates

You do this by adding the line

.Inline-Template {display:none}

to your personal CSS styling file, Special:Mypage/monobook.css. (Sorry, I noticed the conversation on User talk:Into The Fray and decided that even though it was a bit late, you might want to know the answer.) Hope that helps! --ais523 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Even at this late hour, this is very valuable information. Thank you for showing me this. / edg ☺ ★ 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Thanks for the advice. Lord Crayak 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Santana album 1969.jpg‎

If you don't add a fair use rationale for this image, it is likely to be deleted. Here are the handy templates: {{Album cover fur}}, {{Non-free album cover}}. Usually, both are needed.

Edit Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal-300.jpg if you need a quick example of how to fill in {{Album cover fur}}. / edg ☺ ★ 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

question : image

thanks for your message - - - i've seen there are 100000000s of album covers with the simple "fair use box"... you mean i have to make the "fur" as well for, for instance, Image:Phillips Michelle Victim.jpg ? kernitou talk 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Phillips Michelle Victim.jpg could use one as well. The only exceptions would be art that is free use (or otherwise GFDL-compatible), which practically no album covers are. Wikipedia is enforcing non-free content rules more strictly now that it did a year ago. Legally this is understandable and necessary, but it has caused much frustration for image uploaders.

For other non-free images (musician promo photos, for instance), use {{Non-free media rationale}}. (example) / edg ☺ ★ 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

santana : done kernitou talk 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good FUR. There is a possible second problem with the Santana cover.

Album covers greater than 315px longest @ 72dpi are considered more than is needed for fair use, and may be deleted. Some discussion of this is on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26#Need_guidance_on_WP:NFCC.233b. This is especially a concern for album covers because anything big enough to be printed out for a satisfactory-looking CD cover can be claimed to aid piracy, and the record industry is famously litigious. I degraded a bunch of Pink Floyd album covers to address exactly that concern — an item was [tagged for deletion simply for being too big.

Having to do this sucks of course, but since the Santana image has been tagged for deletion once, it's probably in someone's watchlist. In the event it gets tagged for size, I have some instructions on Image:Pinkfloyd_50.jpg#Resolution_degrade.

Sincere thanks for your contributions. / edg ☺ ★ 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot for your helpful help - - - i had a look at the floyd covers so, from now on, i will stay under the 315 rule ('s ok for me: if i need a bigger cover, i can find it on the net anywhere) + i will put a fur on michelle, oops kernitou talk 12:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

santana: done (310x310): too bad, the details are so great!!! kernitou talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

michelle: done kernitou talk 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes

I would like some help, if you don't mind. When you have time, of course. Jiminezwaldorf 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember me?

I don't know if you remember, but a few months back me and you had a dispute over the international broadcasters section on the Scrubs article. Anyway, i was just going back over my talk page looking over old disputes etc, and i realised that i was in fact extremely rude, hostile and accusatory towards you, accusing you of cheating, manipulating etc. I am so very sorry that i was so rude towards you, i'm ashamed i said some of the things i did, and although i could make the excuse that with the stress of work/exams etc it's justifiable, even so, i still feel bad. Therefore i apologise for every single rude statement or implication i made towards you. Sorry--Jac16888 19:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me. No hard feelings whatsoever. I'd actually gotten so used to hostile correspondence that none of it seemed far from ordinary. This more than compensates. / edg ☺ ★ 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

141. Was rude to Edgarde

just kidding. Thank you for your reply, i really don't know what came over me those few weeks, i was snapping at everyone, and i'm sorry that included you. Not any more though, i'm new and improved. Sorry again, and thank you--Jac16888 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper Canvassing for Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

from User talk:Wedineinheck‎

Why don't you put your vote in support of this Category? Vote Keep so it won't get deleted. Thanks, --Ludvikus 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia's rules on canvassing. Deletion discussions are not polls, so votestacking is a disservice to your cause, especially if it is determined you are canvassing to influence the results. / edg ☺ ★ 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of any such Wiki prohibition. I'm going to research that right now. Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've read the rule. You're mistaken in it's application to me. I've contact that One editor who has actually Used this Category. Accordingly, unless he knows that it's up for Deletion, his use of it is meaningless. So you are mistaken. --Ludvikus 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also just placed the proper notice on the Deletion discussion page. --Ludvikus 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Rule against canvassing?

Had no idea that existed. If so, I stand corrected. Thank you. --Ludvikus 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Exception(s) to the rule

I've checked the Rule. It seems that you're mistaken in its application to me. It is not an Absolute rule. In fact, it's very clear that there are circumstances in which canvassing is proper, and good for Wikipedia. Please reconsider you're observation. --Ludvikus 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note carefully the exceptions to the general rule - and examine more precisely what you believe I did wrong. Thereafter I expect you to get back to me with an appropriate Wikipedian response. Thank you, --Ludvikus 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with these rules, and telling an editor how to vote in a deletion discussion is fairly blatant canvassing. The category does not seem to be created by Wedineinheck. What exception do you claim? / edg ☺ ★ 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonesense. He's using the Category. You are being Pedantic. We are not in front of a USA voting booth. The guy is a User of the Category. He clearly believes in it. So you are playing with formalities. I'm not Telling him how to Vote. I'm telling him that he will not be able to Classify his characters under that Antisemitic Category unless he Votes Not to Delete. Cann't you see the point. The guy is already Converted User of the System. So are you going to Split Hairs with me? You are simply Wrong, and I hope you can admit it.

And if you insist on splitting hairs - look carefully at the word "multiple". Contacting One Editor is not Multiple. Or what do you think? One editor is the same as Multiple editors? --Ludvikus 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Soliciting a vote from someone known in advance to favor a certain outcome is blatantly votestacking. I'm not really interested in arguing this. I just wanted you to be aware that you may be crossing a line. / edg ☺ ★ 01:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. And after carefully studying your view, I've come to the conclusion that I've done the right thing. And for the record, here's the first part of the Wiki rule your concerned with (showing the footnotes):

    '''[[Canvassing]]''' is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence
     a community discussion.
     <ref>Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to
     automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.</ref>
     Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written
     to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and
     are generally considered disruptive.
     This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.
     <ref>On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards
     an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community.
     An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.
     Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved.
     If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are
     contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."
     See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#StrangerInParadise is disruptive]].</ref>

• Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: WP:CANVASSING states

A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.

Therefore, Ludvikus did not break the rule in its literal sense, but, as a general rule of "Wikiquette" telling a user to vote a certain was in a discussion is frowned upon. To explain further, the message was only placed on one user's talk page, so it is not canvassing (at least described word-for-word in the canvassing policy), but it is something that is generally looked upon with differing degrees of dislike. Had Ludvikus placed the message on multiple users' talk pages, then it would be a clear violation. As it stands, however, while Ludvikus did not violate the policy, I suggest that they refrain from posting messages like that on talk pages. Hope that's clear enough, and happy editing, ( arky ) 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the Rationality that Wikipedia is producing. First of all, I had no idea of the existence of this rule. And I'm glad to have learned of it this early. The principle I operate under is Fairness - which is at the basis of all systems reflecting any degree of Justice.

Now back to my point. I think it is consistent with the Canvassing rule at Wikipedia for me to contact any editor who is now actively using the Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. And that telling such an editor to Vote to Keep is certainly not Disruptive. It is absurd to think that by so saying I'm influencing that editor. Such an editor obviously believes in the legitimacy of the Category - otherwise why is (s)he using it? --Ludvikus 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, it is perfectly OK for me to go to the Talk page and Solicit Votes - to Vote to Keep the Category - or does anyone advise me not to do so? If not, why not? --Ludvikus 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  It may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion and you may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When You Wish Upon a Weinstein

This episode was cited by the media. With the filed lawsuit, When You Wish Upon a Weinstein may receive additional review by others. If you have the time, would you please rework the article with reliable source material. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Family Guy}} template

Thanks for helping push out the template. Feel free to add ratings for Class and Importance — you certainly know the project as well as anyone here. / edg ☺ ★ 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, I'm not an episode reviewer, so I will just be adding the template. TheBlazikenMaster 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for that then. / edg ☺ ★ 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Erotica

I added the section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. In fact, it is the most referenced part of the article. If you delete it again without first discussing it on the talk page, it may be seen as vandalism. 151.197.111.178 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Take it up here: Talk:Erotica#Student_publications 151.197.111.178 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think we were editing at the same time. Look, it may one day be big enough to justify its own article, right now... no. Until then it should stay where it is. 151.197.111.178 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• My comments here merely reflected what i've already said on the talk page. I was responding to your comments on my talk page. So, my comments here were just comments about your comments. In the end, I don' want to edit war, bit i do feel that that section adds to the article.151.197.111.178 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• There is no consensus on that section. There is merely edit warring and bullying. I will report you for violations of 3RR if you continue to revert the article. 151.197.111.178 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)