User talk:El Sandifer

Monkeys?

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence

Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.

To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.

Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Page two

Phil, quick question you may know the answer too, you've been here longer than me. Have we ever explored the idea of having a (page two) for articles. For example, Superman is growing again, and rather than break out areas into sub-articles, I was wondering why we don;t have a link at the bottom which says <next page>? Some sites do it, some don't. Has it ever been discussed? Hiding T 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tabbed articles

Hi Phil. Risker has pointed me here from some thinking I'm doing about the benefits of tabbed articles (examples here and here). He said the matter had been raised on the en-l mailing list - but I can't find it. Would you be interesting in sharing your thoughts? Also if you have any techy/developer stalkers here, I could really do with some input regarding the feasibility of some of it, what would be easy/difficult to implement, better technical solutions etc. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects

Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Phil The ussny.org spam has returned on USS New York LPD-21. Thanks Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.32.33 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

USS New York LPD-21

Phil The ussny.org spam has returned Thanks Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.32.33 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

i suggest a change in temperament

For the record, A.1 was not a distortion of your original proposal. It was its own proposal. And nobody stopped you from adding A.1.2. But there's no consensus to treat it as policy, while 60 more people weighed in at A.1 to oppose the spirit of both proposals. Combined with solid support for A.2, it seems obvious that people are against a blanket spinout exception. But there is more support for specific, discriminate exceptions. This is where I see the potential for agreement.

I have repeatedly tried to refocus our discussion from personal attacks to the facts at hand. You've accused me of bad faith politicking to build support for one proposal, when that one proposal is really beside the point, and it's actually a compromise that I'm personally against. You've accused me of bad faith, and have used words like "bullshit", "manipulative", and "malice" to describe my actions. There's no way we're going to be able to engage in productive discussion when you choose to act that way. I've tried to show you, repeatedly, the numerous comments and how they can all be reconciled into broad areas of agreement. But you insist on a narrow comparison of two proposals in order to fan the flames of disagreement, which will only throw out the RFC as completely useless, and lead us back to square one where we debate content rather than broad principles. There really isn't much else I can say. A third-party is probably the best way to resolve this RFC and determine the consensus.

What you're doing right now is not productive. Maybe it's best to just leave it to the third-party. If you want to discuss this civilly and rationally, you're always welcome to. But if you want to escalate this into personal attacks, I wouldn't hesitate to take this to an administrator. Not to get you in trouble, but to allow the RFC to be wrapped up by cooler, conciliatory heads. Whether that wrap-up includes you depends on your temperament. I mean that sincerely. Randomran (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Template help

Not sure if you have time or know the answer to this question but I'm looking for a way to figure out if a parameter passed to a template is a text string like "3 days", a text string that can be evaluated like "123*3", or a number "123". Can you point me in the right direction - I have been trying to use the #Switch and #ifeq parserfunctions but nothing seems to work. --Trödel 19:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:N

You asked:

In what way does WP:N, as written, apply to fiction articles?

You actually answered your own rhetorical question. WP:N is a fiction article. Bongomatic (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How did you pull this off?

I want to make Sporcle quizzes! (Also, I couldn't have named an Infocom game- not one. Now, if you want me to name every Rockstar Games release, I could probably pull it off.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fiction Survey 2008 draft

Phil, do you think a survey like this would be a good way to create a notability guideline for episodes and characters, like bainer alluded to in your recent request for extension? I've written a first draft of a survey about various fictional topics and I would like some feedback on it. If you could look at it and comment on its talk page (or edit the survey to look how you think it should look), I would appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

DVD commentary track, different angle

"overused comedy trope" — The Onion is miles ahead of us. Or at least of myself. Everyme 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comics in education

FYI, I have started to expand Comics in education and will continue to do so. (I know you thought it had merit to start with but since you were involved in the discussion I am bring you upto date. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Development history of the Final Fantasy series

Hi, you gave your input in the deletion discussion of this article; however, the problem remains on what exactly should be done with this article and the relevant featured articles. There is currently a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Eight featured articles to be demoted. Please stop by and participate. Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Please be advised of this discussion:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarification on arbitration restrictions with respect to ArbCom election, pertaining to a case you were involved in:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3.--Tznkai (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)