User talk:Hiding

Archives

---

• RFA Thanks archive

1. 13 April – 9 August 2005
2. 14 August – 12 November 2005
3. 13 November – 3 December 2005
4. 4 December 2005 – 7 February 2006
5. 7 February – 30 March 2006
6. 31 March – July 19 2006
7. 20 July – 10 September 2006

Notability.. guideline?

Hi, I noticed that a few months ago you "made" Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) a guideline. I was wondering if that counts as an official guideline, or is that in name only. I had thought that for something to be an official guideline, it needs some sort of official vote. Is this not true? Fresheneesz 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See votes are evil What wikiipedia is not for thoughts on voting and whether Wikipedia is a democracy. Basically, it isn't, and we determine decisions by consensus. For details on how a policy is created, see and guidance on creating policy and guidelines. The page is indeed a guideline, there are no levels of guideline tagged pages, all pages so tagged have equal status, as guidelines. As to how I determined the consensus, I'd note the page is in wide usage, is linked to very heavily and no objections have been raised on the talk page. Steve block Talk 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you object to replacing the Template:IncGuide with Template:Guideline? Also, I don't really see the point of having it as a guideline since the main point of the entire article is that a company needs to be listed by multiple reliable sources exactly equal to WP:V. The only thing it adds is to allow the inclusion of "English men's football clubs competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system" - which sounds like a totally random inclusion, and is probably someones POV rather than a consensus. Fresheneesz 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page you'll see the consensus for that addition. This isn't the place to discuss whether it is a guideline or not, that should be done on the page's talk page. As to changing the tag, I do object, because for notability criteria we use the {{IncGuide}}. Steve block Talk 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your objection gives no valid reason. Saying "it is because it is" is a horribly blunt circular argument. You got anything better? The notability requirement all links back to WP:N which is a stub proposal with no support whatsoever, and follows in the footsteps of 2 failed proposals. I think thats an inappropriate association. Fresheneesz 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is fairly high support for it. Wikipedia:Notability is a high-visibility page, linked and referred to everywhere; anyone who objects to the change objects on the Talk page; anyone who agrees with it says "oh, that's a good idea" and continues along their way. The text of that page is pretty clear and being on Wikipedia for almost 3 years and encountering hundreds of editors on subjects directly related to this issue, at an absolute, extraordinarily conservative minimum, two-thirds of Wikipedia editors would agree with the statements on that page now; they are quite a basic common ground. The people who object are always the most vocal, and the people who agree aren't usually vapid enough to leave an empty "Support" vote on the Talk page. —Centrx→talk • 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

People agreeing upon it as an essay didn't agree upon it as a guideline. How many people do you think have realized that it is now a guideline proposal, and have supported it? Look at the talk page - Not many. Fresheneesz 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have lost the thread of this discussion. We don't use one template because we use another. That's not a circular argument, but continuously asking "why" is when one has been given the answer. Why do we tag articles for deletion with {{afd}} rather than {{cfd}}? For clarity and as a method of explanation. Why do we use {{IncGuide}} instead of {{guideline}}? Because about a year or so ago, someone grouped all these pages together and tagged them through their commonality. And people thought it was a good idea so we used it. What links where has no real bearing on the material on a page. Let's not forget that ultimately, Wikipedia exists because a couple of people thought it was a good idea to build an encyclopedia. I happen to agree with them. Any power in a policy page is there because the people building the encyclopedia grant it. There is no reason beyond that. I appreciate it's hard to take when consensus seems to contradict how you believe, but sometimes those are the breaks. Let's not forget we are here to build an encyclopedia, not build rules telling us how to do it. Any decision on Wikipedia is going to be disputed, so we need touchstones to work out how we all feel about things. When a page is cited repeatedly in such discussions, it usually implies it offers guidance. However, let's not forget, contributing to Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Steve block Talk 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the power of any policy stems from the believers in that policy. And thanks for clarifying what I was really after. However, in building this encyclopedia, people have also been building rules for how to do it as well - to make the process go smoother and faster. "contributing to Wikipedia isn't for everyone" - what are you implying.. :: raises eyebrow :: ? Fresheneesz 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I finally answered what you were after, although I'm still none the wiser as to what it was. People will always build rules. We will also always have Ignore all rules. As to what I mean by stating that not everyone finds editing Wikipedia to their tastes, I mean exactly what I say, nothing more, nothing less. Steve block Talk 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Judge

The way he writes, his edits, his behavior towards other editors... I wonder if he's not (at least) linked to a problematic six-month-banned user. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one who has been thinking that. To create a WikiProject and a number of templates within days of registering is out of the norm and seems suspect. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked him about this on Tuesday. He says no. The next step is internal investigation. Steve block Talk 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You can make that four people who suspect them to be one and the same. CovenantD 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's just been confirmed, as well as Shredder-man[1]. Can you, using the admin mop, go about deleting all the crap that he's created since his return? CovenantD 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No surprise at all. Now, what about all those templates he's created and proposed?

• {{Infobox DCAU character}}
• {{Miniherobox}}
• {{Multiherobox}}
  —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can delete them, but any user can remove them from an article. However, if you do, use the following edit summary: removing additions by a user evading an arb-com block, see WP:BAN and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Any help would be appreciated. Steve block Talk 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He's created some articles as well:

• List of characters appearing in Batman: The Animated Series
• List of villains appearing in Batman: The Animated Series
• General Vox
• Draaga
• The Judge (comics)

Some of these using his Shredder-man persona. What to do? Delete them all just like those three templates? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

His upload log, Steve: [2] —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

CAT: DCAU characters

If this category has been speedy deleted, won't administators who watch the categories for discussion depopulate it? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that work can be done by any editor, not just an admin. But yes. I just fancied that speed was of the essence and it was good experience for you. :) Steve block Talk 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good experience. Very funny. I'll keep clicking save. :) --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, is that how it works? I can list it at the cfd working page if it's too much. And seriously, it's a good thing to have in your edit history. Steve block Talk 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tintin

No problem looking over the page. FAR is just small enough we can give each a little TLC... There's a couple more on-the-fence comments I'm sure you'll notice in the review, which you may want to take care of. Marskell 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Steve. I sense a little exasperation in your last review comment on Tintin :). I'm basically a keep on the article myself, and I think at the present pace of work (there's about four editors copyediting) there should be no worry. The page will be that much better with the criticisms addressed.

I hope you're largely agreeing with my copyediting. Basically I've been shortening sentences, as there's some unneeded language. For instance, there's sometimes repeated or obviously implied information in sentence predicates that does not belong ("Hegre created a well-realized world for his characters to inhabit.").

Keep up the good work. Marskell 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, all's well that ends well. A few people dropped into the page to work on it, and its now a much better FA. Cheers, Marskell 05:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And now...

You recently said that CFD is broken. Could you please elaborate? It may be fixable. I've got some duct tape right here. >Radiant< 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please point me to some of these disputed decisions? What (if anything) seems to be the agenda or direction of this clique? >Radiant< 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I begin to see your point. I'm not sure if it's quite this bad yet, but ironically I predicted this wildgrowth of categories over a year ago. The problem is that while we have some policy/guideline about what categorization is or isn't appropriate, (1) most people don't read that, (2) most people don't understand that the more categories an article has, the less meaningful they all become, (3) most long-term editors don't care about categories, and (4) people can "drive-by" to have their pet cats kept (pun intended).
  • I think passing WP:CI swiftly goes some way into stopping this (at least, it'll get rid of "foo by religion" and "bar by sexuality"). A second Good Thing would be gathering some clueful users and having them comment on each day's CFD (it's not that much work, honestly). A third option would be to strictly enforce CSD#G4 on categories, but that'd require a list of them (or the good memory of some clueful users). There was some effort in creating that, but it fizzled out.
  • Looking around CFD some more, the biggest problem seems to be the intersective cats. So if any of you are anywhere near IRC this week, please chat up the developers regarding [bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5244 bug 5244]. >Radiant< 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_Categories. >Radiant< 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked me how I'm getting on with making my bot patrolling Protected deleted categories. At the moment RobotG is broken, because of the recent major change to the category listing (the tree format): I am of course working on fixing that first without having as much time to devote to it as I'd like. When RobotG is back to health I will try and code up the feature you requested as promised. Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. RobotG will now patrol Protected deleted categories too. First tentative run just completed. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

T-Man

Something has been nagging at me since T-Man was caught with two sock puppets. Please take a look at T-ManWiki (talk · contribs). Is this worth a checkuser? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing trouble with the Star Wars comics

What should we do about Skope (talk · contribs)? He was told not to make articles for individual Star Wars issues, but he continues to do so. There are so many articles to merge because of him, and some of them aren't even out yet. He just makes less-than-stubs that, until he can add more information, are all duplicate regurgitations of press releases. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

Thanks for making the adjustment; the project will work much better this way. I read a discussion between Jimbo Whales and a guy from Britannica on WSJ.com, and it got me thinking again about the strength of Wikipedia's numbers. If new people work with more experienced people, they can learn how better to edit. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Hey, Steve, and thanks for your comments at WP:EL. I am willing to listed to comments that are both for and against me, to see what I can do to reach a reasonable consensus.

Regarding the bit you struck out, you made a very valid point. I did prompt a pointless, stupid and embarrassing edit war. Obviously at the time I was a total newb without a clue that obviously hadn't read this, this, or this. I want to make it very clear that I am truly sincere when I say that I wish the whole thing never happened and that I was entirely to blame. Since the dispute I have removed all offending material that I could find on my site [3], and have recently made it over again from scratch. If you see anything there that is still offending copyright, please let me know and I will remove it. I have no intention or desire to violate any copyright with my site, and that's not just because I want a link from Wikipedia. I get tons more from other sources than I do from WP. The reason for creating my site was simple: I really enjoy Calvin and Hobbes, and I wanted to create a place on the web for fans to enjoy, as well as for newcomers to get aquianted with the strip.

I want to try to see if we can simply put the whole dispute behind us. You did come off as a bit rude, and hasty to me, but I think that much of that was caused by ignorance and rudeness on my part.

The main reason I brought up this discussion was not prompted by linking to my site, but rather on linking to other Calvin and Hobbes fan sites that are in the article. There are several very useful links there that would technically not be allowed by the current system, because it only allows for linking to one fan site. However, there is more than one site that merits linking, and I don't think that they (or fan sites in general) should be excluded on these grounds. This is not just for my selfish reasons either, it is for the good of the entire project. There is no reason for Wikipedia to be arrogant and refuse to link to fan sites on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". This is true, but there is no harm in having a few external links at the the of a well-written article. Please note as well, that in cases where there are many (I'd say more than five) quality fan sites to link to, that the propsed change states that linking instead in that case to a Open Directory Project category (or, if there is none, some other directory such as Yahoo!) would be the best solution.

Anyway, I hope that you can offer some suggestions on what you would prefer me to do, and what to change about the proposal to make it reasonable to you. I know that you want to stick to your guns and not links to fan sites period, but a pretty healthy majority (but mind you, not a consensus yet) think that the proposal on the table is a good solution. I really believe that if we are all willing to compromise a bit, we'll come to a reasonable consensus. Thanks. - Mike 00:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

Thanks for pointing it out; I've replied there. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Asgardian

Hi, Steve. I see you're staying busy!

I hate to add to your burden, and am only doing it after another admin who wanted to help said he didn't know enough after comics. He suggested I got the Admin noticeaboard, but before doing that and possibly running into the same problem, I was hoping you might take a look. It involves the ever-problematic Thor (Marvel Comics). (God — so to speak — who would have thought such a low-selling, twice-canceled character had such fervent fans.)

User:Asgardian continues to make trivial and often misspelled and stylistically wrong, and grammatically poor edits to Thor that three other editors (User:CovenantD, User:Jamdav86 and myself) keep removing, to no avail. See [example]. He won't work with the community, won't offer compromise solutions, and writes long, defensive diatribes at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics). It's not vandalism per se, I don't believe, but edits clearly against consensus. Any advice? -- Tenebrae 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. -- Tenebrae 19:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you could look at the rest of Asgardian's recent edits it would be appreciated. He keeps reverting many other Thor related articles to his prefered version, often wiping out the SHB, wikilinks, categories and the other language stuff at the bottom. I'm getting tired of having to revert his/her sloppy edits, day after day after day, on article after article. CovenantD 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

EL

Please allow time for more discssion with regard for your proposed changes. David.Kane 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the changes, but don't simply revert them, thanks. Steve block Talk 13:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of making 3 reverts when, in fact, you had only made 2. Since I have made three, I will not be making more today, although I hope other editors will. It is not so much that I object to the substance of your changes as I object to the high-handed (as it appeared to me) style of making them. David.Kane 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at User_talk:David.Kane

Steve, I must disagree with the way you went about doing things as noted in your second comment on David's talk page. Notice that the rest of us brought up a topic on the talk page before making significant changes to the guide, whereas you simply came in and made your changes, and then brought them up on the talk page. When David then reverted your edits that had been made without disucssion, you commented "feel free to disucss changes, but don't revert them without discussion." Am I missing something here? Because I was under the impression it was the other way around. - Mike 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• (I've amended the above back to the original version. If you want to make changes, please strike out using <strike>strike through code</strike>. Steve block Talk 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• (Sorry, you keep changing your comments as I try to reply so I'm not sure this is valid anymore but here goes.) Are you suggesting I was too bold. I've got a fair understanding of policies and what works and what doesn't. There's currently no consensus for the page to be split as David was attempting. The onus is on him to build consensus for that change. I was not amending established policy beyond anything that had already existed or been discussed. My point to David regarding don't revert without discussion was that David had already reverted the page twice. It was clear there was a problem and our guidance is that problems are discussed, not reverted. edit wars don't get us anywhere. However, the page is now protected due to the edit warring that occurred, and everyone now has to discuss the issues involved. I'm not clear what your point is, exactly. I asked a user not to revert but to seek discussion. Steve block Talk 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. I was just fixing typos and things of the like, didn't mean to create an edit conflict :-). I think you misunderstood me a little. I disagreed with David's changes, however what I noticed were your changes to the wording of some of the sections, which did have an impact on their meaning. Looking back at the edit history I think I got a little confused about what was reverted and what wasn't (very chaotic at that time :-), but I think it would have been nice if you had braught up those changes on the talk page before making them, rather than making them and expecting that nobody revert them. I don't fault your intentions, and I am sure that the changes were in good faith. Heck, maybe I'm just a little over-sensitive to them because I was involved in all that was going on at the talk page at the time. Maybe we were getting into debating petty changes to the guide, because some of your edits seemed to be along the lines of what we were still debating over. I am glad the page has been protected so that now we won't have to worry about edit warring and can simply come to a solution. Happy editing! - Mike 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NCC

Well, I think I'm finished with the integration. Check it out and see what you think. I gave a quick explanation of changes at this talk page. - jc37 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, tardy reply. Seems to be settled and okay. How are we disambiguating publications now? I quite liked the idea of using publication. Steve block Talk 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rakaboshi

Hi. I just saw that you deleted a mainspace article by this name. The sole contributor to this article was User:Rakaboshi. It was an empty page, and I do not contend that it should not have been deleted. But, the thing is that you did not inform the newbie user about its deletion. Many of potential editors may be deterred by that. I suggest that you write up some kind of note on this particular user's page, about the page he created and why it was deleted. Please reply here if you want to, I am watching this page Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I was going to but the phone rang. Thanks for the note though. Also have to list Zippy (SWG) rev 2 at the deleted pages list. Steve block Talk 12:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring assitance

Hullo. I'm trying to trim the fat from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop to make it remotely usable. I've copied a version to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Sandbox2. I'm currently cutting out side issues etc, but the bigger task will be the summarising/condensing of things that do need inclusion. I could use some help, even if it's just in the form of "edit so-and-so was bad, leave in foo and take out bar." - brenneman ^{L} 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still kinda adding stuff to the page to try and get across what I see as the issues. I think it might be best to just leave the whole page as it is, it's a workshop, they tend to get messy. The committee will work out what they want from it. If people think I'm adding to the mess, well, they know where to find me. Steve block Talk 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was naive...

To hope that everyone could work together in finding solutions to the problems in this RfA, editing collaborativly. I'm over that, but when I'm on the committee, it will be better.

Regardless, I hate to read your last few posts, as you sound dispirited. Yes, this arbitration is a disaster. Yes, there are quite a few dogdy practices laid bare without solutions evident. But buck up little camper, we'll get it right eventually. Wikipedia, I mean, even I don't still have much hope for this arbitration.

brenneman ^{L} 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The thought of you on the arb-com made me smile. I'm getting tempted to stand myself next time, but I haven't got the clout to make it anything but a dream. I'm very unclear on what the scope is on that arbitration, and I haven't yet received a reply. I'm not sure I'd manage it any better though. I have been thinking that the only way to get a deadminship proposal working is to go straight to the top. Who has the power to deadmin? Steve block Talk 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Current events

1.) First, thank you for the comment. I saw you were somewhat buried in other matters. But even so, no need to apologise, as I said, I had no expectations : )
For further info see: Kbdank's talk page; Wryspy's talk page; my talk page And for "after comments": David D.'s talk page and my RfA page itself (in particular, my "last day comments at the top).
And I appreciate the nomination offer. see David D.'s talk page for my comment on that. (Sorry about all the "see also"s, but it sounds better to not try to re type out another essay : )

2.) Please also check out the discussion on the WP:UCFD talk page (observations).

3.) Now that it's been "stable" for awhile, I think I'd like to start working on Hal Jordan as that's one of the requests on WP:CMC. Any thoughts? - jc37 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do you want to do it collaboratively or on your own? Steve block Talk 13:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• May hands make light work, many eyes see what a single pair might miss. That said, either way is fine with me. It seems we were timely in our discussion. Did you note the discussion on the WikiProject's talk page? I think maybe we (I?) need to clarify about the overview articles when not disambiguated? - jc37 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• You could either work it up in your user page or do it in a temp subpage of the article, and invite collaboration. I'd be happy to give pointers. The general idea would be to split the page into sections, and then work the sections up into articles. That sort of thing. Steve block Talk 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Checklist?

Hi there, Steve. Would you mind checking what the heck is this ?? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've left a message. I'll take it from there. Steve block Talk 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :D —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had to be sure you weren't playing favorites. Then I deleted it. Brian Boru is awesome 15:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sping clean

I've just ran once over WP:Notability (People) . There's a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Medium_sized_clean-up if you'd like to partake. Not a shake-up, just a tidy-up. - brenneman ^{L} 11:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thought. I seem to have my hands full at the moment, and one day I want to get back to finishing Tintin. Sob. I'll do what I can. Steve block Talk 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Peanuts

Hi Steve: I have proposed Peanuts as a possible collaboration of the month at WP:COMICS. I merged your old nomination into the new one, was that the correct way to re-nominate it? I'm new to the WikiProject. Here's hoping it passes. Needs a lot of work and references. -  Mike | trick or treat  23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno what's supposed to happen with an old nom and a new one, first time it ever happened. Looks like one way to do it. :) I'll have to get around to working on Peanuts one day. Instead of working for them. Good luck. Steve block Talk 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional elementals

What's supposed to happen with this? I mean, you know me, I'd just empty it. Merge it where? Do we really need to categorise fictional characters by their abilities? Steve block Talk 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following to the WikiProject talk page. It has the necessary links. But to summarise, we need to merge the category into subcats of category:Fictional characters by superhuman power, and listify the actual "elementals" (not including the element manipulaters/generaters). - jc37 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category help

Per this now closed CfD/R, category:Fictional elementals needs to be manually recategorised. (See discussion here.) Any and all help would be appreciated. - jc37 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I read the stuff at the project page, but like I say, I'm still not clear on what's supposed to happen. Listify which "elementals"? The classical elementals, like those that use fire or water, or the elementals like Swamp Thing and.... did Ostrander do something with um, Nucleo, was it? And I think Gaiman made Brother Power the Geek a doll elemental. Or something. See, this is why I get confused and just want to delete it all. :) Steve block Talk 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Firestorm. That's who Ostrander did something with. Steve block Talk 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nature's elementals, as opposed to element wielding characters, I believe is the idea. If you think that it's confusing, I can go through and try to deal with the elementals first, if you (and others?) can start the merge of the wielders. (Though I think most are already sub-categorised, so it's just a matter of removing the elemental category, and checking for subcat categorisation.) - jc37 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll make a start and you can see if I cock up. Meantime you can explain what you mean by nature's elementals. It'd help me if you could list some examples. Steve block Talk 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Elemental lists the non-comic book ones. I think we should create: List of elementals in fiction and possibly List of elementals in the DC Universe - Swamp Thing (Alec Holland), Firestorm (Martin Stein), Red Tornado (John Smith), and there was a water one (Naiad) in some issues of Firestorm, but I don't know if she's still around. A "deity" of sorts named "Maya" (not to be confused with the recent superheroine of Indian descent) apparently claimed to give the four of them their elemental powers. Category:Heralds of Galactus already exists, though it too, should probably be listified for similar reasons. What's going to be "fun" is video games and media related to video games. Four Fiends, for example. Perhaps List of elementals in computer and video games. How's that for a start? - jc37 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Mark Millar's run on Swamp Thing played with this a bit, he developed a Parliament of Stone, of Water, of Wind and of Fire, and made Swamp Thing become champion of all of them and thus unified them all into a Parliament of Earth. I don't have the issues anymore, but he seemed to disregard the "Maya" idea, although I could be wrong. Steve block Talk 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• ? How come you moved this to my talk page? There's no discussion to unify. Steve block Talk 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whenever anyone asks me a question, I move their question, and my response to their talk page. It keeps the question in context, and to me would seem to be the polite thing to do. - jc37 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ah. You can just as easily reply at your talk, I watch other people's talk pages after I've posted a comment, and I think your talk page is one I watch permanently now, in case I miss a good idea. :) Steve block Talk 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I made the request. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Fair play. I was trying to hammer something out off-wiki, but that hasn't come to anything as yet, so no problems. Whilst you are here, I owe you a few replies. Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) seems to be gathering pace without me, which is good. The cleanup project is a good idea, but is what the comic project is supposed to be, and also I'm stretched everywhere at the moment. User:T-ManWiki I would put money on being someone else who decided to clean up after T-Man, I have an idea who but those dragons may as well lie sleeping for now. User:Skope still a problem? I think that's it. Steve block Talk 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words on my RFA. I've always tried to be more like you as an editor. I used to ask you how you got you skill with Wikipedia mechanics, as well as patience in dealing with disputes, but it turns out a lot of it comes with experience. I appreciate all the help you have given me, and I plan to do my best, should I become an admin. Otherwise, I will probably just slack off and relegate myself to mocking the good work of other users. Thanks again, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Skope, we got him to merge his single-issue articles, but I think he's stuck at maintaining the story arc articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

T-Man Parte the Thirteenth

So, I guess it's cleanup time again. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• yeah. I've just blocked User:201, I'm just in the middle of sorting out what to do with the IP addresses. I know they can be tricky, since more than one user can have the same IP address. Time to re-read my policies. Steve block Talk 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Block and updating ArbCom ruling

Hi there. After being told that User:201 is a sockpuppet, I investigated further and I see you implemented these two indef blocks: [4] and [5], but on reading the ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic, I saw that the Logs and Bans bit at the bottom hasn't been updated to include the indef block. HTH. Carcharoth 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, good catch, certainly does help, ta. Steve block Talk 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Renshaw in Mitcham

I'll admit, that was a poor reason for deletion. Though, in my own defense, I honestly was having trouble figuring out what the article was about, and I was right, it didn't belong. DesertSky85451 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to do that? Thats insane. Half the time prod tags are ever removed is because some anon-IP comes and takes it away. Golly the red tape of Wikipedia makes me want throw my monitor out the window sometimes..... DesertSky85451 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Um, I have no idea what on earth you are doing, but I'd like you to not chop about with my talk page and spell my name right. I'm not clear what some of those sections have to do with the issue. Steve block Talk 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Um...

Did you ask Netkinetic before you started cutting stuff off of his user page? Steve block Talk 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally saved page before I could include the comment. This discussion's starting to get out of hand, and I think we should stop the creates/moves and talk about it. The problem is that the discussion is scattered across many talk pages. - jc37 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is always scattered, that's Wikipedia. You shouldn't cut stuff off of people's talk pages without asking first, that's just as bad as the issue we're discussing now. Half that stuff is unrelated. Most of the discussion is at the WikiProject, just point people there. Steve block Talk 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)