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

Re: Re: don't insult editors

A discussion of the problem can be found here.

I think the term "detailed nerdage" is suitably descriptive, and the instruction not to append "information" is probably too vague, possibly risking a backlash from editors who consider this instruction too restricting.

While there is probably a compound word (x + "cruft") that might be more suitable, I don't consider the term "nerdage" insulting. / edgarde 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with using the word nerdage:

1. You're using it pejoratively. This is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (mild violation, but still).
2. More importantly - it isn't a word and is therefore meaningless. Unless you know (or can guess) what you mean by it, saying don't add it isn't helpful at all. Saying something like "don't add excessive detail about Carrie's laptop" is more meaningful. (Same goes for xcruft, really)

Now, as I had it ("Please don't append information about Carrie's computer here") is too vague, so I've changed "append information" to "add excessive detail", which should clarify it. Koweja 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism

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

• KyndFellow is indefinitely banned from editing sex tourism and related articles as well as their talk pages. It is presumed that articles regarding any person, business or service or any accommodation or sex tourism destination mentioned on his websites are related articles, but the ban extends to all articles which relate to sexual services or sex tourism destinations.
• KyndFellow, editing under any username or anonymous ip, is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing.
• Content questions regarding the appropriateness of mention or links to the sites promoted by KyndFellow are not addressed; those questions being left to editorial discretion exercised in the normal course of editing.
• KyndFellow, should he violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.
• Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Count

Imperative use of spare: 12
Spare in quotation marks: 1.

Rintrah 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Adam West (Family Guy)

Now the anecdotes are gone from both articles ... thanks a lot! --72.75.126.37 20:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Both articles are improved. I linked some policies & essays that explain why this is; see Talk:Adam West (Family Guy)#Trivia sections are to be avoided / edgarde 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Refactored Trivia section in Glenn Quagmire, per your suggestion. Thanks for pointing this out. / edgarde 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service. Awarded by Addhoc

Another Award

A Barnstar!

The Jazzter of Righteousness For adhering to moral principles, I award you this Jazzter. Congradulations, 124.189.227.80

Thanks for agreeing with me about Adam West, the character doesn't exactly look 80 yrs old, does he!, 124.189.227.80 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Formal RfC

Just to let you know, I've put up a formal Request for Comment at Talk:Girl-girl. Iamcuriousblue 05:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Misandry

I noticed you over at misandry and was wondering if you could help out. I have tried to comunicate about wikipedia policy to the anon, but there has been no progress yet (just edit warring, which I am trying to avoid). I was hoping a 3rd perspective might be able to help out in the dispute. There was talk page discussion concerning the western culture section and the critical link, yet anon keeps ignoring the previous consensus. At least now, it appears the anon is willing to come to talk, but they need to understand that you don't re-insert controversial content during a content dispute BEFORE the new consensus is reached. Perhaps the edits are for the better, but procedurally, I think the edit warring is clearly in bad form. Also, the "western culture" text is copied and pasted from the web, not from the original code, so a lot of the markup and references have been lost. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 19:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. I've saved some excessively conservative edits, explained them on the Talk page, and linked that explanation from anon's Talk page. I hope it does some good, but with some of the Misandry editors it's like shouting into a void. I've recently been reluctant to post on Talk:Misandry because I felt my comments had become non-constructive and served to inflame more than illuminate.

Has the anon been identified (beyond his IP address) with any certainty as a previous editor? I think the battle he's fighting was previously someone else's.

I'm watching your Talk page, so you can reply here or on my page. / edgarde 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming and giving your two cents. I agree with a lot of what you said on talk. I am not sure the exact history of this anon editor, besides what can be found in their contribution history. Thanks again for your input.-Andrew c 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents due to yet another revert without comment or attempt to fix problems. Talk page notices are past the final warning stage, and user is causing similar PITA in at least one other article. / edgarde 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Girl-girl

I would like to thank you personally for pointing out how User:Iamcuriousblue copied and pasted a statement I had made, attempting to make it look as though I had taken a fair part in the discussion. I appreciate that you took the time to inform me. I have now made a comment at that page; feel free to read it. Joie de Vivre 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for communicating with me about Iamcuriousblue. I too found him to be competitive, and I appreciate your attempts to mediate. Don't worry about the reformatting, no hard feelings here, I hope none with you. I just hate it when a) people mess with something I've said or b) make someone look quite a bit more civil than they actually were. Have a good night. Joie de Vivre 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice

I just wanted to let you know that I have modified my initial suggestion to where Girl-girl should redirect: as "girl-girl" is a term used only to refer to a certain genre of pornography, Girl-girl should redirect to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Girl-girl. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Heterophobia

Are you heterophobic Edgarde? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Chompiras (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Doubtful, but you may have a definition for this term that I'm unfamiliar with. I also doubt anyone has ever targeted Family Guy for criticism because of "heterophobia". If I'm wrong about this, please provide some source documenting this controversy so we can add it to Criticism of Family Guy.

As stated in my Edit summaries, an editor's observation of a subject that may be controversial does not itself demonstrate a controversy — there needs to be a real incident.

Thanks for writing! / edgarde 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reply copied 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC) from deleted comment on User talk:El Chompiras)

Thank you!

I hope this is the right place to thank you, Edgarde, for the heads up on protocol here. I've spent the last 7 hours or so reading and trying to learn how to contribute and edit. I've hardly scratched the surface! Hopefully I'll learn how to be one who adds for the common good. Sincerely, Steve Nelson AINews 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

N & Y

Hi Edgarde, you are welcome to use any parts of the misandry article I was working on. I haven't done any more work on it myself, because dealing with the editors on the misandry page because too frustrating (what's the point of doing a rewrite if other editors can see why it would be an improvement?). I might stop by and help with the N&Y article. --SecondSight 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join Project Gender studies

Hi Edgarde you've been doing some great work on the Misandry and Nathanson and Young articles. In respect to this work I'd like to invite you to Project Gender Studies. It'd be great to have some more editors with experience of working on Men's issues at the project but if you feel that it's not your thing don't worry.--Cailil ^talk 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Book Spam

Hi Edgarde. I greatly respect the vast amount of time you put in to your work and sheer respect [I speak quite genuinely, glancing through your work] leads me not to enter into any edit wars with you. I can only say I notice your removal of links and comments I submit out of fear of "bookspam". I don't wish to argue with you, but I'd like to assure you that the references submitted are all to relevant material and are not in any sense appropriate to the word "spam" in any context. For example, the edits relating to the Books of Enoch and Jude were pointing out that these books are connected, and actually there is material online which lists Jude's allusions / quotations to Enoch. That's hardly what I'd call "spam" of any sort. However I can appreciate your concerns about what might appear to be out of context spam. So all that said, no bad feeling, how shall we leave it? Having given these assurances, can I revert some of the changes? If you wish to re-revert them [to invent a word], that is fine, let's leave it there. -- Christadelphianeditor

Hi Edgarde, thanks for your note on my talk page, not sure if replying on yours is the right way to respond, forgive me if so. The links to DH's writings are not to self-published material, as his books are not published by himself; nor do I consider such links irrelevant. It's inevitable that anyone seeking to link to the Christadelphian perspective on issues is going to consider linking to something he's written as he's the most prolific of the Christadelphian authors, and his writings are mostly visible online. My intention is to give the current Christadelphian perspective at relevant points in Wikipedia articles; of course at times I may be pushing irrelevancies and you're free to knock those out, but I hope I've explained where I'm coming from. Thanks again, quite sincerely, for your efforts. -- Christadelphianeditor

Thanks again for your comments, I see what you mean- all articles can be endlessly added to. I guess with religious themes more than anything else it's hard to dispassionately judge whether a contribution is 'worthwhile' , really helpful to someone genuinely seeking information on the topic, or just adding yet another strand of thought. Not had much time to do much lately, but I just added to the article about Millenarianism, bearing in mind all you've said and all Wikipedia policies. If I'm still not getting it, just knock it out as you seem to be my kinda guardian or whatever on this site. Sincere best wishes -- Christadelphianeditor

Islam

I read your comment on Merzbow talk page. Please do not stay out and edit. We need more people working in Islam related article. :) --- ALM 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Passion of the Christ

Afraid not. All I'm saying is that the plot summary needs to be shortened, or rewritten. It's written in broken English at times, and is already far too long. I simply put up the tag so everyone knows it needs to be rewritten. If you feel it should be removed, feel free to take it down. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for letting me know. I'll do this in the future. :D --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Beatles article length

I just can't win, can I? Do you mean a Notes section in the table to include why they joined/quit and how good they were? --Jeff Bongi 00:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Crisco

I don't think any non-standard uses belong in the article. I see out-of-context stuff get zapped all the time in other articles. However, if certain editors insist on including the sexual lubricant stuff, then it's only fair to include other documented non-standard uses as a household product. So at the moment (unless someone has messed with it), I'm OK with the article as-is and don't have anything to add to the RFC about the article. Wahkeenah 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, in fact, put a similar comment in the RFC portion. I don't know if I did it in the proper format. But as long as there is some balance in the article, I can live with it. However, if someone tries to revert it back to just the one isolated non-standard usage, then the editor's agenda will be exposed. Wahkeenah 11:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Undue weight" is probably the issue I've been arguing, I just wasn't sure what to call it. And I wish I could come up with other examples that I've seen, where someone posts something in an article A about topic B, and it gets reverted because article B is the place to cover it, with a reference back to article A. If that makes sense. Wahkeenah 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding a source is not sufficient, as we are constantly reminded. It has to be reliable and relevant. I have little doubt that the source in this case is reliable, I'm arguing relevance. It would help if Crisco themselves had a section on their website about "helpful hints". But there are plenty of places on the internet where people report various uses. I didn't see one about lubricating the runners of old chest-of-drawers, for example, so I didn't use that. But there are plenty of uses listed now. Some would argue that some of those usages are safer than actually consuming the stuff, but that's a separate issue. Wahkeenah 12:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

sx tourism

template has been repositioned. Mindys12345 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatles / Across the Universe

Fair enough. Stick it back in the article, and please add a reference. I apologise for not checking the wikilink in the first place. LessHeard vanU 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still my bad, though. I checked the editors contrib history (it was the only one) and then googled for it, what I didn't do was check the link and assume good faith. LessHeard vanU 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Phone Sex Article

You have removed a link that I posted on the Phone Sex entry to a very well-written, information-rich article "PHONE SEX: Benefits of Playing in The Aural Erotic Sandbox." Your comment that this article is "just not that informative" is not correct in my opinion. The article provides ten very edifying reasons that people use phone sex for pleasure, both professionally and non-professionally, which the Wikipedia piece itself does not provide, though it alludes to some of the reason. Furthermore, I have not seen any other article on the Web that provides such a comprehensive explanation of the benefits (as well as some of the drawbacks) of phone sex, and the reasons why men, women, singles and couples might wish to use it as a form of sexual release and expression. The article goes on to give six more very instructive and enlightening reasons why some sex therapists use phone sex in therapy. The author, Dr. Susan Block, is one of the world's foremost authorities on phone sex and phone sex therapy. She has appeared on many television shows, from Oprah to HBO, as well as Leeza, Tech TV and the WE Channel, talking authoritatively about phone sex. I myself am a journalist and publisher who has been writing about sexuality for over 30 years. I would like to request that you reconsider your opinion, so that I can repost the link. Or at least, please clarify your negative views, as I feel strongly that this article contributes much-needed information to Wikipedians about the "benefits" or reasons why men, women, singles and couples use phone sex for pleasure, exploration, communication and therapy. Davidross1943 13:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Geoff Nicholls

Hello. Geoff Nicholls was not an official member of Black Sabbath on the albums Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules, Live Evil, Born Again, Dehumanizer, Live at Hammersmith, or The Dio Years. The obvious way to prove this is to view the band photos from each album. Nicholls is in none of them. If Nicholls was a band member at this time, he would be in the photos. Liner notes explicitly separate him from the other members. Of course he deserves to be mentioned, but not as a band member on these albums. This is fact.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rumitoid (talk • contribs) 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Susan Bryce

Just wanted to say thankyou for your time for getting invovled. Much appreciated. Kindest Regards, Susan Bryce.Susanbryce 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like your biased efforts are appreciated.--Eli 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding eonsex

Please don't be removing eonsex links because it is an genuine site, not affiliated and without pay content. We're merely an index of free-pornographic content. Our crawlers operate similarly to Google. Appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivko (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath Insults

Hello Edgarde, can you tell me if I can complain about rodents constant abuse of me, and if so, where can I do this?Susanbryce 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

can u please tell me where i can complain about people making unfounded abuse claims?RodentofDeath 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edgarde, is the following that RodentofDeath placed on his user page allowed, it is clearly an attack against me.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RodentofDeath. Enough is enough, and I request something be done about these constant attacks against me please.Susanbryce 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnks Edgarde, no, Im not in personal danger from his post. With that said, I am always in danger in the philippines and have been shot before. Im not sure if your aware, but A United Nations Special Invesigator is currently investigating murders of political activists in the philippines, especially in Angeles where there has been numerous murders. Ive gone to great lengths here on Wikipedia to protect myself in ways I cant discuss openly here. Heres the link on the United Nations Investigation....http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36521. Thanks for your help, Kind Regards, Susan.Susanbryce 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary abuse

{{helpme}}Isn't there a policy on abusive Edit summaries? Can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure it was part of some Wikipedia policy page. / edgarde 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Real96 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned about misleading edit summaries, like this one[1]. The editor has a pattern of misrepresentation. / edgarde 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary has a lot of guidelines and advice, but it's not exactly a policy. I think "don't make deliberately misleading edit summaries" is probably so obvious that we don't need a policy or guideline; it's just obviously wrong. If it's not deliberate, then that help page might be useful in explaining what's actually expected. Bryan Derksen 06:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I presume the article is gone or reworded now, but as I recall there was some suggestion that abusive edit summaries were for some reason especially troublesome and frowned upon. As for it being "just obviously wrong", that presumes both common sense and common courtesy, which cannot be relied upon in my experience, especially with certain editors.

If I could cite a rule to the abovelinked exemplar, he might cut it out. My simply saying "don't do that" or "it's obvious why not" won't be effective. / edgarde 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edit? I was adding cross-links to Wikipedia in a useful way. You were overzealous and out of line Hotpanda 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there user:Edgarde, — yes, if one doesn't know where the real action is going down, one has rather missed the boat. This one never had me het up, its all a learning experience, and I have much to learn. I appreciate your interest, and see much merit in the arguments you raised in that thread. But I didnt see, (IMHO), anything verging on personal attacks by anyone there. Improve Wiki, thast's easy! I am removing some of these tags from articles, after I check what work has been done, and the Talkpage, and who added the tag, when, and what evidence was supplied. Just some tags, it is not any crusade, as I think the tags can be helpful, just not left on indiscriminately. And, maybe, on the Talkpage. And that's too much argument from me for one day. Cheers! Newbyguesses 03:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

HEY EDGARDE you DUMBASS, why dont you read the articles of "support" for this angeles city sex slaves article, I DARE YOU TO POST ONE SUPPORT REFERENCE THAT REFERS TO ...SEX SLAVERY IN ANGELES CITY, OR HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN ANGELES CITY

YOU EDITORS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES. YOU DONT EVEN READ THE SUPPORT DOCUMENTS,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.151.87 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Schoolsat.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Schoolsat.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Schoolsat-back.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Schoolsat-back.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy shouldn't be taken seriously

Thank you Edgarde for giving me a new topic for depate on my talk page. I really appriciate it a whole lot.
Yours Truly,
BrianGriffin-FG 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Warning

I thank you for your warning about my recent edit. I was trying to insert a citation, and I removed it, also taking out the "citation needed" box. (Lordevilvenom 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Prebendalism

In regard to this edit, why did you remove the entire references section and then mark the article as unreferenced? Was there a problem with the sources? -Phoenixrod 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up! -Phoenixrod 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Forte

Thank you for even looking my way. I didn't notice that you had replyed before KingBoyk deleted it. As far as templates go, I have tryed to copy Wiki's album and band templates, but they won't work - I have a feeling it's the {{#ifeq things that are messing it up. as far as copying them, yes I legally can. It's all under the GFDL. also, the fact that it's on an otu-of-date MediaWiki doesn't help - 1.5.5 with PHP 4.3.10. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It will eventually have stuff on music in general, and instruments. As far as it goes, yea, it pretty much is Wiki's music section wrapped up. A little more lax, but actually, not too much more. I know, it seems stupid to do when you write it out like that. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (copied from my talk: Where should we hold this?)

WP:ATSIA

Hi User:edgarde, referring to this post, and in particular the last sentence, [2] does it still seem the case, noting the changes since the page-protect came off, on 19 June, (07) that stalemate is to be the outcome? The guideline looks good to me currently, (well, I would say that) though it should be renamed WP:AIL (Avoid irrelevant lists?) That is my present inclination for this guideline. Any amplification of your erudite positions is welcomed, any talkpage is fine, Regards, and not trivially, user: Newbyguesses - Talk 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Abba/ABBA

They are in Backlog - Articles needing copy edit - Articles with several capitalisation mistakes. There are several articles there relating to Abba. Thanks. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me | Articles touched by my noodly appendage 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[3] That's the link. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me | Articles touched by my noodly appendage 09:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

off base

Hmm, so my calling the article laughable is an attack on Susan Bryce? Sorry, but that is quite a reach. Now, hinting that she could be on the payroll of PREDA could be construed as an attack I suppose. Perhaps you should reread my comment. Susan was saying that the article had something to say about Angeles City, because a Philippines journalist made an ill-informed reference to the bars in Angeles City - citing a NATO consideration. NATO has no troops in the Philippines. No doubt the Filipino journalist did not understand that, and thus made the mistake. I however found it laughable, enough so that I actually did LOL. My Filipina wife, very proud of Angeles City, also found it funny. Therefore, my remark that it was laughable. Your assertion that it was a personal attack on Ms Bryce is biased, and demonstrates your lack of objectivity on the Angeles City subject, with or without your dearth of knowledge of the subject. Thanks, Eli--Eli 00:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer to my response. You are right, I did not have to say that perhaps she had a vested interest in the view she is pounding into Wikipedia on Angeles City; though I am curiuos as to why she has such a view, so contrary to what is currently Angeles City. I was overly emotional about her very biased attacks on a city I know well and love. My wife and I found humourous the Filipino Journalist confusing NATO soldiers' instructions - with soldiers from Australia or the USA, under their own commands, instructions. Such confusion is common for many Filipino 'journalists'. We also know that it was a 'reach', at best, to say that the bars in Angeles are "sexbars". I and my wife do not find the consistently errant, aggressive, misleading, if not lying attacks on Angeles City as humourous. We find it disturbing and degrading to the Philppines and the city. We do try to find humour to mitigate the irritation of such propoganda. We also fault ourselves for initially falling for the PREDA propoganda for three years and supporting them before we discovered the truth - accidentally. I will attempt to provide sources in the future. My relatives in Angeles City will keep my appraised of articles to update this discussion. Thanks again, and I apologize for any offense. --Eli 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson

It was not unconstructive, please refrain from deleting others post. kevinbocking 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated insertion of the word very adds nothing but a POV tone of complaint. Your perceptions that Bart is not whiny, and that Lisa is very whiny, are simply your opinions. Please let go of this. / edgarde 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose sticking my tongue out won't help anything? ;) - kevinbocking 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That might make you Kevinmocking. Thanks for not edit warring over this. :) / edgarde 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it would probably get be eventually kicked off anyway;) - kevinbocking 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon RfC

My comment would serve no purpose attached to my statement rather than Merovingian's, as it would then simply be a non sequiter and serve to further confuse non-participants in the past debate. Since the purpose of making the comment in the first place was to clarify that we were discussing the current image, not the Wikipe-tan one, this would be counter productive. If it's absolutely necessary, you could delete the additional comments entirely. --tjstrf talk 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAMILYGUY isn't a good shortcut.

Unless you can find another Wikipedia page that uses WP:FAMILY I see no reason why you should do this. I mean common. WP:SPONGE redirects to the SpongeBob WikiProject, so why shouldn't WP:FAMILY do? At least keep one of the shortcuts on the page. Not everyone can remember to type out, shortcuts aren't supposed to be full names. They are suppose to be for easy use, I'll take another example: WP:WAR redirects to the Warcraft WikiProject. WP:FAMILYGUY is fine, but we need another shortcuts, I just wanted to help. TheBlazikenMaster 15:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not fine, we need shorter redirect. Can I at least get WP:FG back? TheBlazikenMaster 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, they are called shortcuts because they are short form, that's why WP:FAMILYGUY isn't the only one needed. You're right about five being too much, but still, seven is too much, I made WP:FG to make it short, we need it sometimes for example, summaries, as they're very limited. Two is fine, even though you might find it pointless, keep in mind it can be useful for some. And after many have joined, I won't be the only one needing that, trust me. TheBlazikenMaster 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry for the late reply. Yeah, changing the setting would be better. I was at hotel (I'm on vacation) and just copied and pasted my code in quickly. It would probably be better for a longer time period before archiving. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot archive settings

Thanks for the message! - kevinbocking 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Seth MacFarlane

I misread the article. I thought that the article stated he sounded like Peter - I was gonna change it to say Brian. However, on rereading, I realised what I'd done, so I removed the discussion. Thanks for getting in touch though. --Will2710|^Talk! 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bocking

Hey Edgarde, sorry to trouble you but I was wondering if you could close my article's Article for Deletion page and take off the notability and AfD tags on the page if you get the chance. Thanks! - kevinbocking 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The AfD needs to run its course. I've not followed this one, but it now seems like a probable keep. / edgarde 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikihermit, the user that nominated it, withdrew yesterday. - kevinbocking 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really have an effect. Once the article has been nominated, the AfD is no longer dependent on the nominator. Normally these things close around 7 days after the nomination.

If it closes with a keep — not certain yet, but possible — that's a strong precedent against future deletion efforts. Presuming you don't want it deleted, I'd say it's in a good position. / edgarde 03:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright, thanks - kevinbocking 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Albums

I removed your special sub-heading that attempted to garner yourself a new discussion on the discussion above it. Since all it did was address issues raised in that discussion, I see no reason why your post deserved a new heading. Also, since I started the proposal you should have requested that I clarify the meaning of it for the title, and not just say "for all jazz albums". That came up later, and I said I'll take whatever I can get. But if you were actually paying attention, you'd realize the proposal starts off clearly as a suggestion for all albums. Also, you took the time to edit the talk page again, but did not address my question posed to you. Have you ever tried categorizing albums the way you proposed? Or, as I already know, are you presuming it to be more sensible? I say i know that because if you actually had done that for a number of albums, you'd know it is anything but sensible. No more lectures to me, and I won't lecture you. I'm not your kid, you aren't my kid. Lets keep it that way. (Mind meal 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Supermodel images

Do you really think that Image:Adriana Lima by David Shankbone.jpg illustrates the concept of a supermodel better than Image:Michele Merkin 4.jpg? I don't. In your edit summary, you speculated that I'm on a promotional campaign. I assure you, I have no connection with Ms. Merkin, and had never even heard of her before a week ago. I'm simply delighted that another editor was able to secure high-quality photos under the GFDL. Many articles on models and model-related topics do not have suitable images, because professional-quality images of models are rarely released under a free license. I was just trying to correct this. See [4] and [5]. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that there is a real person here, with real feelings. I'm sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia, and some of your comments hurt. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Edgarde, your comment to Quadell completely fails to assume good faith. The editor above has provided what he thinks is justification and you have completely ignored that statement (he asks you a question which you haven't answered). Please enter into civil discourse over this issue as I am sure you can come to some form of agreement over it. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You have speculated about the editors intent. You didn't answer his question, you side-stepped it and revert warred over the image in question (which means you have entered into the debate). So my comment is based on your speculation. You failed to ask Quadell what his intent was before engaging in negative comments - this is not assuming good faith.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is merely the fact that you see Quadell as a spammer that is the problem. You did not look at his hundreds/thousands of edits and see what he does. You saw a couple of edits and thought 'ah a spammer'. This is the root of the problem. Your apology is good, as is reverting. I would encourage you to discuss the issue further with him and try and work out the issues you feel exist with the images - I agree with you with a couple of the uses of the images...-Localzuk^(talk) 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate confusion

I fear that you have confused WikiLen's views with mine; please read the comment I left at Wikipedia talk:Relevance#Mission: Imagining something not easily accomplished.--Father Goose 02:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:REL

Hi there; E/edgarde, if you construed me as unkindly disposed towards your good self on the talkpage, please, that is not so. We can all appreciate 'irony' here! Be of good cheers; U:Newbyguesses - Talk 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Artist+genre+album

Since you suggested Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums was a more sensible way to accomplish categorizing albums correctly by subgenre, I thought you may be interested to know that a user has now proposed merging all such categories into Category:Jazz albums using such a method at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_17#Jazz_albums. My hands are literally tied. I cannot categorize jazz albums at all in a precise manner. I thought that everyone agreed that at least the method you proposed was acceptable, but now even that seems impossible. I wondered if you would be interested in defending your suggestion there, otherwise there is no way at all to achieve accuracy at WP:ALBUMS. Thanks. (Mind meal 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for "Review B"

I'm busy implementing your suggestions as well as I can. I keep cracking up while I read your review. You are a ruthless reducer -- and funny. Bastard.--Father Goose 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand one of your points

Edgarde, I am missing something on your critique of this below in my REL3 version for Relevancy. (WikiLen)

The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. A fact may be relevant but not notable. The circumference of the Moon is not notable but, although a minor detail, it is relevant for the article on the Moon.

This has nothing to do with the Wikipedia standard for notability. However, it is the sort of example often made (mistakenly) in discussions defining "trivia" — no one (other than in straw man arguments) thinks the moon's circumference is "trivia" and therefore should be excluded from Moon. Someone so confused they believe it may ... still hasn't learned anything by reading this far. (Edgarde)

My intent here is to provide an example that demonstrates how "relevant" and "notable" have different standards. Therefore, one cannot use standards of notability to determine if something is relevant for an article. If you are saying 'no one is going to think the circumference of the Moon is notable', well then so am I. That is my whole point; relevancy and notability are different things. Perhaps, I am just not getting what you are saying. By the way, I am not familiar with the consensus struggles over Trivia. And thanks for all the work you put into the reviews! —WikiLen 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Band credits

How is the reader supposed to tell between an actual band member and a session musician? This is the issue here.

True, but what if I hear about the Heaven and Hell album, then go to its page and suddeenly I think Geoff Nicholls was a band member, when he's just a session guy. Album pages should not require prior reading of other pages to document details, most of all something as important as official band member.

Album covers

Are you actually trying to say that album covers aren't allowed on Wikipedia? Album covers are not allowed on discography pages because they are decorative. The are allowed on the actual album cover pages. If they aren't, well you have a lot of deleting to do, as every album in history on Wikipedia has a cover on it.

Concerns re: Team Building Editing

Moved from post on my User page

I really don't understand how you can say that a full page article that gives details about how to pull team building together and ensure it's effectiveness is not "of value" to a repository of information on team building. Some of the items discussed are not widely available anywhere on or off the ntet. I am sorry I just don't get it. To say that this is promotional is really beyond my comprehension.

Even the repository of articles you have links to contains the log and a link to the Autenticiy consulting site that promotes it:

http://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/teams/teams.htm

http://www.authenticityconsulting.com

Are you going to tell me THAT isn't promotional? site is also selling books through Amazon directly on the page to which you link from Wikipedia. When people have Amazon boxes on their sites and purchases are made through as a result of a search, they receive a commission on all sales. Are you going to tell me that THAT isn't promotional? Yes the content is free (like the team building primer) but people have the opportunity to make a purchase that directly benefits the site owner and link to his consulting service. Natually any organization that goes through the trouble of putting together information is going to want to put their logo with a link on or include a brief blurb about the organization. There is nothing "spammy" about that if the information they present is of value and the information in the team building primer IS of value and not readily available from other sources.

Executiveoasis 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes the Team building page was very spam prone. I think this has been addressed with these changes.

As for the repository of information on team building, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Encyclopedic information worth including in Wikipedia is best placed in the article, not linked.

Incidentally, you left you message on my User page (User:Edgarde), which I don't really check for messages. If you leave messages on my Talk page — User talk:Edgarde — I'll find them more quickly. The ☺ in my signature also connects to my Talk page. / edg ☺ ★ 11:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You just got owned

Go ahead and wipe that pie off your face while I continue to follow the rules of WP: ALBUMS. Have a great day! (SabbathForever2007 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC))