User talk:Curly Turkey

Archives
2006 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

WP:GA work on Little Annie Fanny

Hi Curly Turkey, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I'm reviewing the article Little Annie Fanny which you seem to be a major contributor on. The nominator, Prhartcom, according to their user page, is on wikibreak so I am notifying you as well about it. I have placed the article on hold for 7 days pending some changes. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Wugapodes (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I don't have all the sources he had, but I'll keep an eye on it and help out if I can. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've responded, but I wonder if Prhartcom's really on break—he put up that notice in April, and he sure seems to have made a lot of edits, as recently as today. I wonder if he just forgot to take down the notice. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes and Curly Turkey, I am angry at myself for forgetting to take my Wikibreak notice down. Below is a paragraph of my venting, but I must admit this is rather humorous also.

Wugapodes, please allow me to make a correction to your assumption. I did all of the research for this article and rewrote this article in its entirety myself. (Here is my sandbox version). I don't think Curly Turkey will mind when I say he is not a major contributor. After I completed my research, I deleted the previous, unsuitable version of the article, then I rewrote the article. I asked Curly Turkey to pre-review the article, which he was kind enough to do (I trust him as he is an expert on the subject). However, in addition to his helpful comments that he wrote to the Talk page, he also made numerous tiny edits to the article, each edit changing only a few characters. This is not the way I edit. I write, click Preview instead of Save, write some more, click Preview again, and repeat this process for sometime hours and then finally click Save. I complained to him at the time that others would see his name in the history so much more often than mine and fail to notice the number of characters I contributed in comparison, and assume he was the primary contributor. Now I see that this is exactly what has happened. And now, I am dismayed to see that I have left my Wikibreak notice on and find Curly Turkey, in good faith and only trying to be helpful, responding to the review as if he is the nominator. I fully understand there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. But rarely have I put so much work into an article and I have been patiently waiting for the moment of its GA review for six months. Curly Turkey, thank-you kindly for your help, I am not ungrateful and I remain respectful, but I believe I would like to take over at this point! Prhartcom (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it—the nomination's in your name, so you'd still get all the credit. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And I only just now finished reading Wugapodes' review. Thank-you for stating numerous times that I should have the final say. As I implied, I rarely get that opportunity! And I must clarify that I want you to continue to follow the review and interject your comments anytime. Now I must retire for the evening and briefly return to real life in the coming morning. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

BOOM!

I'm not confident I've got the location in the photograph right, but if it's where I think it is, I lived for four non-consecutive years right in the middle of this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Jaw drop

• "You have no right to contest the decisions made by your betters."
• "Our opinions are irrelevant. Only the ruling class may make such determinations. You must remain subjugated to the law, to the government, and to the collective. Where would it all end, if people thought they could challenge government and rule of law? No one has any right to rally against the law. The law is the law, and must be adhered to. You have no rights, not one. What is willed by God will come to pass, whether one likes it or not. He views such arrogance with disdain. Let those with station do what they are to do, and those without do what they are to do. Accept your lot, as people have done for centuries."

I'd assume he was trolling if I hadn't seem him in action before ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's just... ugh. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Per Holknekt

Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for the notice, but all I did was some light copyediting! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken

The article It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Art Spiegelman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Art Spiegelman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I hope to have the review done in the next 24 hours or so. Sorry for the delay. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ed the Happy Clown

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ed the Happy Clown you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Language tests

Hi! I saw this edit which was part of removing the WSK language tests from the template. I don't understand what the edit summary means?

The WSK tests are administered by the Chinese in China but they test proficiency in English, French, German, Japanese, and Russian. The only language test to have its own distinct article is the Public English Test System (PETS) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Article

Please take a look at the article Jenny Skavlan that I have created. I plan a DYK nom for it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And the article Linni Meister could also need a check. Always appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And Murder of Catrine da Costa that will appear in the OTD section of the main page in a few days time. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ick ... could you give me something more pleasant next time? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EdTheHappyClown4.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EdTheHappyClown4.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Art Spiegelman

The article Art Spiegelman you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Art Spiegelman for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ed the Happy Clown

The article Ed the Happy Clown you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ed the Happy Clown for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EdTheHapyClownCharacters.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EdTheHapyClownCharacters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Art Spiegelman

The article Art Spiegelman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Art Spiegelman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:He-gassen

Hi, Got any sources that would help covering the tradition here? Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Japanese version of the article gives a couple of sources, and Google Books gives 149 results, although (a) they seem mostly to be in passing, and (b) almost none of them are viewable online. Almost all of them give the title as 放屁合戦 "Hōhi gassen" rather than 屁合戦 "He gassen", though (放屁 refers to the releasing of farts, whereas 屁 is a fart itself—the difference, I suppose, between a "farting battle" and a "fart battle"). If the issue is whether there are enough sources to justify having an article, I say without a doubt yes. If it's about how those sources are being used—I'd have to get out to the library to answer that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Something about the Japanese article, though: it talks about a bunch of these "fart battle" scrolls, and uses the late-Edo one to illustrate the "tradition", rather than being about a single scroll. The earliest example it gives is one by Toba Sōjō from the 12th century. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity only

Ran into your screen name and immediately thought it must be a play on Cooley-Tukey (an FFT algorithm). After quickly scanning your talk page I guess not...so much for accidental similarities. Have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can promise you, the guy who gave me the nickname wouldn't know the Cooley-Tukey—or any other—algorithm. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Maus --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, thanks—I won't oppose this, but I'm not going to support it either, as I've long wanted to rework the "Themes" section into a more general "Analysis" section (a lot of work, though, as there's a great abundance of sources to work through, and not really any source I'm aware of that tries to sum them up). Someday I may create an Analysis of Maus article (there's more than enough material for it). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Understand ;) - we have so many mushrooms and battleships, why not two Maus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, which is why I won't oppose. Whether I actually get to the second Maus will depend on my caprice. I just feel the "Themes" section could be much stronger. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

August 22, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 22, 2015, I made some tweaks ... I'm not criticizing your writing style, I just think in general that a column (such as TFA) should aim for some consistency in style. See what you think. I hope I didn't introduce inaccuracies. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dank: Just two things with the current wording:

The book is postmodern, persistently self-referential and ironic—most strikingly in its depiction of Jews as mice, Germans as cats, and non-Jewish Poles as pigs.: this makes it seem like the anthropomorphism itself was ironic—at times, irony deflates the animal metaphor, by I wouldn't say it was overall ironic. I think I'd drop the "persistently" as well, not because it's inaccurate, but because it's a bit redundant.

Okay, what I'm trying to do here is preserve your wording (which is fine) while dealing with a readership that won't have a clear sense of postmodernism, and avoiding definitions or anything that sounds professorial. Would something along these lines work? "The book is ironic, self-referential, and postmodern—most strikingly ..." - Dank (push to talk)

I think that works better, but I don't think the irony is as prominent as the self-referentiality, etc—the word hardly even comes up in the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

with frequent flashbacks to the war years: probably two thirds or more of the book is these flashbacks—I'm not sure "frequent" gets that across.

See what you think now. - Dank (push to talk)

Yeah, that's good. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

With Departures appearing next week, I guess I get two TFAs within a week of each other! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, we like to showcase our best talent. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking us to uncharted lands, celebrate great victories, hear of harrowing experiences, and cross the threshold between life and death, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	It took a while - but thanks at least in part to your help, Hu Zhengyan finally made it to FA! Thank you so much for your assistance in getting it there. Yunshui 雲水 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

A project for you perhaps. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm ... I'll take a peek, but not today—I'm going to be busy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Two mainstreams

"Two parallel mainstreams seem to have developed. One mainstream includes Marvel, DC (and very soon Image) and the other entails books that actually dominate the sales charts; in other words, the comics considered mainstream by comic readers and comics considered mainstream by statistics." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

C/e advice

Hey Turkey, may I ask for a suggestion on how to modify "the devil watches people killing each other, sure they will go to hell" (from Kill 'Em All#Music and lyrics) in order to be the devil who is sure (because it may appear it is the people who are sure with the current wording).--Retrohead (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• "and is sure" would work, but there's probably something better. Go with that for now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gertie the Dinosaur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comics vs Comic

One of your favorite awkward manifestations of the English language! Is it always "comics" and never "comic"? Don't worry, I mostly know the answer, however I come to you with the question as the Little Annie Fanny article is undergoing a very helpful copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors and, while I know it should be "comics series" and "comics feature" and not "comic feature", I notice my own writing occasionally says "comic" ("the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic") so I may be getting it wrong sometimes. After all, it is "comic strip", not "comics strip". So what do you think? It would help me the most if you would please go to this page and search for every use of the word "comic" and see if each appearance should instead be "comics". I want to get an understanding of this once and for all. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's "comics" when referring to the medium, so it's correct to say "comics writer", "comics publisher", "comics critic". In "the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic", you're not talking about the medium. "Comics strip" and "comics book" would be logically more correct, but "comic strip" and "comic book" were well established long before the term "comics" (uncountable) became widely used to refer to the medium (which happened by the eighties—it's how Eisner used the term in Comics and Sequential Art).

In "the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic", you're not talking about the medium itself, but individual manifestations of it. Think of it this way: "theatre" is a medium, and a "play" is a manifestation of it. A critic of the medium would be a "theatre critic", rather than a "play critic", right? So take "pencil roughs of each page of the comic" and substitute "theatre" and "play" into it: which sounds better, "pencil roughs of each page of the theatre" or "pencil roughs of each page of the play"? Since it's the latter, you're safe using "comic". Having said that, I avoid it because "comic" can be read in different ways (apparently "comic" is the preferred term for "comic book" in England, for example, and in certain circumstances the word can be read as "comedic", as in "comic novel"). I'd use a term such as "strip" or "work" to avoid confusion, but you're not "incorrect" to use "comic" there. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God—you've got Miniapolis copyediting ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha, I appreciate that reaction; the copy edit was good, very helpful; I'll just restore some small changes, feel free as well. I also appreciate your knowledgeable instruction; I get it now: medium vs manifestation; good to know the history. Cheers to you, Prhartcom (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut FAC

Hello. We've gone to FAC with the Kurt Vonnegut article. Just a heads up. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Nikkei

• When was the change made? If it was after 2009, I don't think we should change the name in the article. (Also, I'm not a fan of the The Nikkei) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The J-version of the article says the name change was officially made on 1 January 2007. I don't think I'm a fan of any J-paper—no Sundays funnies. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • (The joke was about the duplicated The. I believe we're supposed to nix the extra "the"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Ack! That's the result of a mass search & replace. Now fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jenny Skavlan

Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Departures (film)

Hi. I take it you've read the MOS on the infobox and MOS:LARGENUM too? $70m is correct, not $69.... And "over" is incorrect too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Jesus fuck you, you troll—you're seriously going to pull this shit again? @Crisco 1492: is there nothing we can do about this asslicker starting an editwar every fucking time he interacts with me? Especially when he's this fucking wrong—both with his ass-backwards and erroneous prescriptivism and his misreading of MOS:LARGENUM. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, could you edit the blurb from "and distributors only released it" to "and distributors released it only"? It's protected, so I can't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I go away for four hours, and the TFA is edit protected. Sigh. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No, not the TFA, the blurb—aren't the blurbs always edit protected? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Right, right. Misunderstood. Long day. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Also, the source gives 69.9 million, so Lugnuts is correct that we should round up if we're going to round. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, MOS:LARGENUM doesn't require us to round when we have a precise figure, unless there's reason to believe it's "unlikely to be accurate at full precision"—are you saying we should round? Regardless, the main dispute was over his replacement of "over" with "more than", which I already pointed out to him is a fallacy: Google search. Rather than discuss, he chooses to editwar. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I'd round for the same reason the population is rounded in their example: even a single miscounted dollar makes the number inaccurate. A double-charged ticket that was later refunded, anywhere, and the number is off. Rounding gives us more wiggle room. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
              • If you want to round it, then round it—my objection is to the grammar issue and the editwarring, and I only reverted the number because the rationale given (MOS:LARGENUM) didn't actually require it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
                • I agree about the grammar issue, TBH. Though I'd rather wait until the article is off the main page to deal with it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • The real issue is that he was trying to bait me into an edit war again (this is the fourth time he's pulled this). It's lose-lose: he either gets his way, or I get blocked. Look at his "response" on the talk page: it's totally divorced to what it's supposed to be responding to. He gets to look like he "discussed" it without actually discussing it—obviously calculated to get under my skin. That he's flat-out wrong is almost beside the point. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the mistake that was in the article and another user agrees it was incorrect before I made the change. If that "gets under your skin" then you have issues. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've demonstrated that you were mistaken and you've completely ignored it. Your comment right now is pure trolling. Crisco, please take a look at the talk page. Even if you agree that "more than" is preferable, I think you'll agree that Lugnuts is not participating in the discussion in good faith. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about you, Lugnuts, or your history together. But even if the behaviour was calculated to get under your skin or to cause an edit war, your best solution would be if you could avoid this happening. Step away for a while if necessary or whatever.

BRD is great when it works, but ultimately even if an editor is ignoring it, it's normally better if you avoid edit warring and simply take it to the article talk page. BRRD is always going to look better on you than BRRRD or BRR...RD. It's also better if you can avoid personal attacks.

I understand this may be difficult in the heat of the moment, and there are circumstances where it's perhaps acceptable to try and keep the original wording (like if the editor is trying to add unsupported nonsense), however most of the time, and particularly for a grammar issue like this, it's going to look far better for you if you started a discussion with resonable language and waited for a response (as you later did). If you received no response in a fair time frame (say 2 days or so), then you can try and reinstate the original wording. If you did receive a response but you feel the editor is being unresonable, there are the many avenues of dispute resolution.

Ultimately, if it does come to ANI, people are going to take far more kindly to you if you handled it as best as you could but the other editor clearly didn't, compared to the case where both sides come out of it looking poorly.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Lugnuts harassing me? Well, I'll be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice

Hi Curly. I am sorry to see the discussion about your comment towards another editor in regard to a content argument you were having. I have argued in your defence at AN/I, but I would advise you to do two things at this point. First, you should unreservedly apologise about that awful comment you made, and undertake never to repeat it, and you should mean those things. I get as protective about my work here as anyone, but it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and while that sucks sometimes when people mess with your work, that is what we all signed up for when we edited here. Secondly, having done that you should walk away from defending your work for the next 24 hours or so. This should include withdrawing from the AN/I discussion after your sincere apology, and also from all discussion or editing of the article. I will be happy to put "dead" vs "deceased" which I will also walk away from. This isn't an administrative warning, as I know you and have worked with you, and am also in a minor dispute with you about a word in the article concerned. Well done for all your work at Wikipedia, of which I think this article is a good example. None of these minor points about formatting or euphemism are worth getting upset about or anybody getting blocked for. Please think about following my advice, as I believe this would be in everybody's best interests. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks you. I'm taking your advice, though it frustrates me no end because I can't help but feel that Lugnuts will provoke something like this again. By the way, it wasn't me but Crisco who reverted you—I just chimed in on the talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) And here and here are evidence that he's only interested in stirring shit. This will never end, and I'm not the only victim of this. How does he get away with it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Right. I've commented on that issue on the talk page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"That" vs. "who"

Please go find it yourself; that's your job, not mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#.22Phantom.22_Consensus_Talks Cebr1979 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, no, the onus is on the person who wants to make the change to provide evidence the change is valid, and you've provided none—but look, I'm nice, so here y'go. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That conversation you linked to is mostly about "he/she" and they have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The few times "who" comes up, you're the only one who thinks you're right. Please just go with the consensus. It is correct.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"running away from"

Huh?Cebr1979 (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just went through your talk page history. Wow—now I know why you keep blanking it. "I can revert you till the cows come home." (!) You've even been blocked for blanking your block notices. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You've been asked at least 5 times to stop clouding WT:MOS with straw man mischaracterizations

If you don't stop blatantly lying about my and others' views and arguments there in an attempt to derail an RfC you don't like, patience with these antics is going to run out very, very quickly. Six requests to stop is more than enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• The mischaracterization is on your part—blatant lies like "you think the goal her is to prevent use of "is" and "[s]he" and "who" in in-universe writing". The issue from top to bottom has been the proposed prohibition on personal pronouns in out-of-universe writing about fictional characters. all the heat stems from your endless tirades (which the MoS folk are very familiar with) and your refusal to engage with the evidence (your Sherlock Holmes example is possibly the most severe case of cognitive dissonance I've encountered on Wikipedia, with your full-on mindreading of the author's alleged intentions). I've made far more than six requests for hard evidence from you, and your response was "Good day". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking of lying: "To him this debate is only about "banning" the use of "we" and the like in fiction". I had no idea you were so desperate as to stoop to that. Every example I've given—without exception—has been strictly out-of-universe: every example, every link, everything. Whatever respect I ever had for you has vanished. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll never understand these people

[1] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(watching) people can handle their talk as they please, no? - congrats to the article! - (old but not dated) advice from PumpkinSky: have a clean version of before TFA day, don't look all day, revert to it and add only the improvements, - confessing that I never managed to follow that advice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure they are, and I'm free to comment on it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Both are of course allowed. Congrats on the TFA of a well-written article of a powerful graphic novel! In our community, I just saw this title in a major bookstore in the "Required Reading" display, set up for the Fall students. I'm proud to link to Spiegelman in my current FAC. (However, I'm also secretly proud of the expert's quote in the last sentence of this section of this article.) Gerda, There's no way I would follow that advice; I have reverted some breathtaking hacks to FAs in the middle of the day. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Officially random

Okay, so the somewhat obscure and thoroughly out-of-print Goodman Beaver gets 32,794 TFA pageviews, and the million-selling, Pulitzer Prize-winning Maus gets 20,958. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's such a downer. ;-)

Speaking of random, be glad you don't live in the United States and can't even vote in your own country: (warning: silly humor) this is what we're faced with in American politics. Prhartcom (talk)

It took me a minute to realize what was going on—no, the "Bad Lip Reading Pesents" didn't clue me in. But what do you mean by "can't vote"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And these poli's are not any more intelligent with the real sound on, believe me. Oh good, is that not an issue? I thought I remember reading on your user page some time ago that you were disenfranchised and weren't allowed to vote (to keep Harper in office as long as possible, of course ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't realize that "your" was referrring to me. Funny story—that decision was overturned, so it looked like I was going to get to vote in the upcoming election. Then about a month ago it was appealed and overturned again—just after Harper replaced two of the three judges (I don't understand that part—it's a provincial court, not federal). Apparently it's going to the Supreme Court next month, but not in time for the election. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• <blank stare> Sigh. I frankly don't know if I'm franchised or not. Considering how much attention the Canadian government has shown me here (zip, nada, zilch), I don't care. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I care; I'm actually really into politics; it's what I usually read. Figures about Harper. I'm not a fan of the guy. But America's right wing (Republicans) are much worse. A typical Facebook post is, "If they get their way on that, I'm moving to Canada." But Australia's Tony Abbott is off the deep end also. Great; it sounds like you and your wife will get to vote soon. Hope you do also, Chris. Prhartcom (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• In eight years of living here, I haven't even received a voter's registration card. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Canadian government never sent out voter registration cards to expats, even before Harper had the law changed (I've been in Japan since 1998). You have to fill out a form from Elections Canada and they'll send you the stuff (or would have—after five years non-residence you now lose the right to vote, traitor). I'm not sure how the States handles it, but I do know that Americans never lose the right to vote. Switzerland sends out notice every time there's an election (I've got Swiss neighbours), and so does the Japanese government (my wife got notice when she was living in South America). The Japanese situation really surprised me, as the Japanese tend to be pretty politically apathetic (when they're not extremist loons) and they don't put the social emphasis on "democracy" and "rights" that North Americans typically do. My wife, for example, refuses to vote and thinks the whole system's bullshit, but couldn't believe the Canadian government would actually strip people of the right to vote (1.4 million out of 2.8 million expats—a population that would make up the fourth-largest Canadian city). (Yes, I noticed you said you don't care, but I'll rant just the same) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom: the further the GOP slides to the right, the further they alienate voters—the next election is the Democrats' to lose. The Canadian election coming up is exciting because there are so many likely outcomes—all three parties seem to have a shot at either first or second place (some recent polls actually had the CPC in third briefly)—and it's all so much more bitter than it was in the Canada I grew up in. I miss the Natural Law Party and their wonderful commercials: "I'm an expert at making things disappear"; "A perfect government" ... I can't find the one where Doug Henning proclaims "I made an elephant disappear ... I can make the deficit disappear!" (but I know I didn't imagine it). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Chester Brown page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

..at the article about Ester Claesson and Lo Kauppi. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• from a mission made by Joseph Maria Olbrich's influential costumer Julius Glückert: I don't understand—a religious mission? Or should that be "commission"? I can't read the source. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have no idea what "criminal case critical play" means. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Baxter Stockman

I'm surprised to see you editing this page, given your recent comments about "driveby editing" on pages an editor "otherwise has no stake in" and "has not previously made edits to."Cebr1979 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I primarily edit in comics, and my edits were not in the least controversial—or did you have some problem with what I did? My edit even tightened the lead in such a way as to avoid what you perceive as a "problem". You, on the other hand? You're trolling both here and there. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We are definitely meeting at ANI. I'm in the middle of something but, once I'm done... I wonder if that's something you will also "barf at?"Cebr1979 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Which has been your goal all along. Those "lol"s in particular will go over so well proving your good faith and dedication to improving the encyclopaedia. You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG before shooting yourself in the foot, especially in light of your continuing with your contentious edits in the midst of an RfC about those edits and your declaration to continue to do so regardless of whatever the consensus might turn out to be. Your persistent harassment of a user after being told to stay off their talk page ain't gonna look too good, either. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you can't say I didn't warn you the boomerang. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move Tou -> Buttou

Hello there! I saw you are a member of Wikiproject Japan; I just requested a move here for the Tou/塔 article, since it seemed to be kind of a weird title given the contents. It'd be lovely if you could take a look or point someone appropriate at it. Thanks, --124.39.78.114 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Chester Brown's Gospel adaptations page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

.. at Micael Bindefeld, Anna Bråkenhielm and Saga Becker.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reboot

"I have no confidence you will approach the reboot next week in good faith." Just watch me.  :-) If you don't put words in my mouth, I'm skeptical we'll have any further issues. Despite your own assumptions, I'm actually quite reasonable, do not hold grudges, and have no wish to perpetuate disputes, but resolve them and move on. I will express confidence, using the positive thinking principle, that the reboot will be framed neutrally and clearly, and that it will be advertised in a non-leading way, and focus on whether MOS should say anything about use of pronouns, and if so what it should say, not on declarations of what's "normal" [to you], or any attempts to pre-load the discussion in a binary, black-and-white way that amounts to a reductio ad absurdum. We do not need an RfC that reads anything like "Should personal pronouns be banned from discussion of out-of-universe discussion of fictional characters?". I trust that you understand this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not getting off to a good start here—suggesting that I've put words into people's mouths, worded things in a leading way, or in any way at any time acted in bad faith. I started the RfC to solve a problem: the assertion by members of WP:COMIC that there is a consensus that personal pronouns are to be avoided with characters in out-of-universe contexts. The RfC will be framed to deal with that assertion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kanae Yamamoto (artist)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kanae Yamamoto (artist) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Winner 42 -- Winner 42 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Over the head

1) I don't think you did anything wrong; your comment[2] was well within my personal bell curve of acceptable Wikipedia talk page sass. 2) Please take it easy on SMcCandlish anyway. This guy has been snarling at shadows for weeks, and I'm starting to realize that it's slightly more than his baseline. Something might be going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)