User talk:Edgarde/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)


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! -- 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 avoidededgarde 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

Barnstar of Diligence.png 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

The Jazzter of Righteousness

For adhering to moral principles, I award you this Jazzter. Congradulations,

Thanks for agreeing with me about Adam West, the character doesn't exactly look 80 yrs old, does he!, 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)


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)


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)


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)


Are you heterophobic Edgarde? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Chompiras (talkcontribs) 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

Male and female sign.svg Hello, Edgarde/2007, and thank you for your contributions on articles related to Gender studies. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Project Gender Studies, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

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


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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 00:02, 20 May 2007

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.... 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.... 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 13:44, 2 June 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Schoolsat.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

Nuvola apps important.svg

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))


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)


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?)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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:

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)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles.

Understood, however, not sure why a long article with original content would be considered advertising. Almost any article will have some information about the person or organization that wrote it. That doesn't mean it was created for promotional purposes. It was a LONG article with a few lines about the organization that hardly seems to be advertising to me.

I couldn't understand why a link to a page that was just a page of links with had no original content and on which books were being sold was considered to be okay and a link to a long article filled with original content about team building was deleted. Well I guess the problem is solved now.

Executiveoasis 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It think your concern was reasonable. For all the evidence the article was presenting to you, it might have been commandeered by promoters of one concern, who were then fighting off links to any other. It has happened on other articles.
I hope this fuss hasn't put you off editing Wikipedia. It sounds like you have a lot go contribute. Keep an eye on WP:N and {{WP:ATT]], and I'm sure you'll do fine. Expect to be edited mercilessly, and don't get worked up over disagreements to a level where you cannot work toward WP:CONSENSUS.
That's all the links I feel like dumping on you today. Thanks for your contributions. / edg 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you. I just couldn't understand what was going on. The page read like nothing but theoretical mumbo jumbo and it wasn't at all practical. I honestly didn't understand the structure here at at all (e.g. that there were editors, administators, etc. I am starting to get the picture now but I have a lot more reading to do. With respect to the specific page, likely the person with the page selling the books was directing traffic to his page so that he could sell more books. Maybe he was the one deleting everythign esle. I don't know. I don't want to make any accusations but it sure looked suspicious. Anyway, maybe at some point we will be allowed to have a go at that page again but for the meantime, I guess it is best to let things rest and allow the dust to settle. The stub was probably the best solution for the time being.

Executiveoasis 02:24, 21 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))

Following the rules? That's a fantastic development. Thanks! / edg 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
He is also back under several other names, such as RunLikeAnAntelope (talk · contribs). Since it looks like he has been following rules, I have just let the user go unless there were problems. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was letting him slide too since he said he would be following rules. Today he has resumed causing trouble, and it's a campaign he's been warned about plenty by now, so the good behavior may have been tactical.
Have you names of previous SEGA socks whose behavior is comparable to RunLikeAnAntelope? I'd like to add them to my sp report. / edg 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections

You wrote:

The ideal, like many, is not unreachable. Lists are poor. So what is your objection here? / edg 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that lists are poor, but the wording as included there includes "ideal" as if it were something we would like to do and not be bothered if we can;t because it's just an ideal. I think we want the same thing, but the wording you are defending makes it less likely to happen, in my opinion. Trying something else if you like. DreamGuy

Personal attack not acceptable

Edgarde, I find you in violation of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL for this edit.

No idea what motivates this, but it seems highly counter-productive. I recall Father Goose calling this tendency "self-immolation".

I will be deleting the above from the talk page and I wanted to give you a heads up first. You may chose to delete it yourself — I encourage that. Nothing in your above statements serve to improve the article. You are expressing unflattering personal opinions about my editing behavior and sharing those with other editors from a position of respected, excellent editor. This is not the first incident — see also this "guru" comment. I have no idea what motivates this personal attack. It seems to abuse the position of respect you have garnered. I look forward to clearing this up and having your continued presence at the project page. I will take replies at your talk page. —WikiLen 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not delete it, since I meant it. I'm really trying to describe a problem with the general sway of your guideline proposals. This is all over the Review I did for you as well.
It seemed to me entirely possible you didn't know you were doing this. I really don't see this as a personal attack. / edg 06:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are completely capable of making the same points about the "general sway" of my proposal without editorializing about me. Above, you commented: "seemed... you didn't know you were doing this." The official policy, "No personal attacks" states:

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

I notice this is not an isolated behavior of yours. You had this to say about Father Goose:

There's a desperate grasping here that doesn't hint at comprehension of what would be needed or useful.

Who is doing the "desperate grasping" and the "comprehending"? Should we ignore all proposals from Father Goose in the future because we know him to be one with no "comprehension... of what would be needed or useful"? You could have simple said, "This proposal does not address what is needed or useful." —WikiLen 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That would have been saying something else. In this sentence I mean to comment about the writing, not the effectiveness of the proposal. / edg 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I am asking for Editor assistance on this. Perhaps this all is my misunderstanding. —WikiLen 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think edgarde's comments towards me, quoted above, were unnecessarily brusque, and overstated, but I didn't take them as "hostility" -- possibly impatience. Edgarde can be quite sharp-tongued, but I don't see anger behind his words. Nonetheless, he could do more to avoid provoking anger in others with his words. I believe he realizes this.--Father Goose 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, especially considering the situation. / edg 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replies from Editor assistance

see this request

The comment isn't even close to being a personal attack - the advice given in the No Personal Attacks policy about commenting on content instead of conduct does not equate to saying that all comments on user conduct are by definition personal attacks. Addhoc 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By way of a second opinion, in case it is needed, I concur with Addhoc's assessment. Neither the comments nor the edit summary could in any way be deemed to be a form of personal attack. It is probably, as you have acknowledged, a case of being too close and subject to the influence of prior dispute. Adrian M. H. 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance

Thanks for seeking an outside opinion on this — I really dislike defending myself. I certainly am familiar with WP:NPA; I referred to comment on content, not on the contributor in Review A..

For what it's worth, I recognize that I have a problem with communicating politically, especially in a heterogenous environment with conflicting viewpoints. I actually feel like I've been holding my tongue, but I recognize that a lot of what I say probably hurts some people's feelings. It's something I have to work on, and Wikipedia is as good a place as any for me to practice.

Question: is there a way I could have communicated my concern about the tendencies in your proposals better? Could you recommend something?

I'll try to go lighter on matters of WP:RELEVANCE. I've already had my say (and then some) so at least in this case it should be much easier from here on out. / edg 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edgarde, thanks for your patience in this and my apologies for accusing you. My feelings are not hurt. I too do not like to defend myself. Explaining myself if fine. It is explaining what I am not that is annoying. I will address "could you recommend something?" in a bit... —WikiLen 04:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My feelings are not hurt.

Great. Maybe we're done here. / edg 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Edgarde, on your question:

is there a way I could have communicated my concern about the tendencies in your proposals better? Could you recommend something?

I suggest first asking if I am open to feedback regarding my editing. I am sure it would be yes and I would ask that you place it on my talk page.
Alternate suggestion: Make it so I don't have to defend both myself (much too old for that) and what I have written. Simple rephrasing can fix that:
  • "self-immolation" becomes "this is far from what will gain acceptance."
  • "No idea what motivates this" becomes "To what concerns does this speak?"
Favorite suggestion: When foolishness happens in the spirit of boldness forget the foolishness, just help the editor be bold. With that kind of help the foolishnes just disappears. —WikiLen 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My advice would be, when you know you're saying something confrontational, read and re-read your comments until you figure out the least confontational words to use -- but still be confrontational. If you sound positively Victorian in your deference, you're doing it right. That way the message can be heard, without it seeming like an affront. Using as much sympathy and patience as you can muster helps too. Good heavens!--Father Goose 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Edgarde, I would be very grateful if you would take a shot at writing the lead paragraph for the WikiLen fork. Father Goose, with my agreement, edited it out. Maybe a lead paragraph is not needed but I doubt it and I feel incomplete without one. I ask for this favor both because you are the best at this and because collaboration can only help. Thanks for your participation in this project. —WikiLen 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've pulled a few items from my version that seem consistent with your proposal. Then looked at what Father Goose has removed — my lead isn't very similar to what you had, but may be considered a less confrontation-inducing approach within the same general intent.
Please remove whatever doesn't work for you.
Suggestion: while Relevancy may be the correct term to use when treating relevance as a subject, the distinction between "relevancy" and "relevance" will confuse some readers, and is generally distracting. Might be better to swap in -vance for -vancy throughout the article. / edg 07:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work. No, actually brilliant. Warrants a new version number REL4.2. Thanks... and I have made the change from "relevancy" to "relevance" as you suggested. —WikiLen 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow thanks. I'm glad to find out it works for you. / edg 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta rap

Thanks for your contributions to Gangsta rap, an article that could use more knowlegeable editors. I'm not defining P Diddy, but didn't 50 cent arrive a bit late to be have contributed to gangsta rap's move towards conquering the pop charts?

I'd suggest a better name, but I don't have a good sense of the big sellers. Fitty arrived after Gangsta was pretty established, and arguably around the time of Gangsta's alleged decline (if one believes that started a few years ago). / edg 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking the same. Its just that P. Diddy is not a good example and 50 Cent was the first major rap artists that came to my mind. I will try to think of a better example or remove the sentence completely. Thanks--The-G-Unit-Boss 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Yr doing a better job than I could. Ice Cube maybe? Thanks again. / edg 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw the article and thought that it had a lot of potential but it is very run down. Just though id clean it up a bit. Ice Cube is a good example. Shall I put him in? Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Cube's article describes him as the seventh richest person in the hip hop industry. Haven't looked up 1 thru 6, but I imagine they might not be pioneering gangsta rappers. / edg 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think that the statements about Ice Cube's welath should be removed as they need citiation and it is very unlikely that any will be found. And sorry for archiving, I just looked at the last post and saw that it was March-- The-G-Unit-Boss 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Are improvements needed on RfC request?

Hi Edgarde,

Will you take a look please, at the wording for the RfC request. I encourage you to make any changes you deem appropriate. Also, is there any point in doing this with Father Goose being unwilling to abide by it? Off to vacation... Thanks —WikiLen 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

re Scrubs broadcasters restored

I notice you restored the Scrubs broadcasters.[6] I think I made my case on the Talk page. Would you care to take this to a request for comment, and would you abide by it? / edg 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i restored it, because i responded to your argument, which was far from valid, and since you hadn't responded several days later, i reverted. You cannot use the deletion of broadcaster articles as a precedent for removing broadcaster sections, since they are clearly different things. You have no established consensus for this move, or the several other places where you've removed it. Doesn't the fact that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Removing_Broadcasters where you're talking about these edits with no-one, was started by an editor saying that they are good, relevant information and simply need standardising, and you somehow decided to remove them, based on a questionable, at best interpretation of WP:NOT#DIR. Or how about the fact that so many TV programs have had these sections for so long.--Jac16888 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bother replying because I didn't think your argument really withstood the policies and precedents I linked, and no one else is supporting your objection. The two things aren't very different at all since they are based on the same principle. As for consensus, the precedents I linked would count as such, and your only other argument was that WP:NOT#DIR applies to entire articles but not to article sections, which isn't that tenable a position.
I don't think anything I say is going to change your mind, but my concern is valid, and consistent with Wikipedia policy. Would you abide by an RfC? Please? / edg 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
if you want an rfc, then do one, but, you say no one is supporting my objection, nobody seems to be supporting you either. I'm not saying that WP:NOT#DIR doesn't count for article sections, i'm saying that it doesn't fit with WP:NOT#DIR, because it is not an epg, they are clearly different as they have times and dates, like an epg is supposed to, and if you check the article history, you will see that it changes very little. you say you won't be able to change my mind, will you be able to change your's? You keep simply quoting the same argument, which is not that valid, nor does it fit with wikipedia policies. And as for "I didn't bother replying because I didn't think your argument really withstood the policies and precedents I linked", i understand them very well, they are a very different case, and a poor precedent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Great. Can you please fill in a statement of position here? / edg 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm filling it in now. What are you talking about " abide by the results of the RfC in summary, and not just a cherry-picked opinion that does not represent the general comment?", what the hell is that supposed to mean?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talkcontribs) 21:42 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Talk page discussion of precendents for the deletion, you chose some fairly exceptional comments as supporting your position. I trust this was in good faith. What I'm asking is that you consider the RfC fairly. / edg 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you accusing me of?, i will go with the final decision made in the rfc, if its inconclusive, the section stays. Will you go will the consensus?--Jac16888 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for getting this in so quickly. I've made the request.[7] These usually take a while to get started (and weeks to finish), so you have some time to refine your statement if you feel the need. Thanks for agreeing to abide by the decision; I'll certainly do the same.

If the RfC is inconclusive (which is the norm, frankly), there are other dispute resolution procedures we can go through, but this should at least get us a few more opinions. / edg 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I read what you said.

Your arguments have tended to include various insinuations against me. I wish I could be more patient with this, but I really need to point out that this is not productive, and I don't appreciate being called "unfair". The thrust of your argument is that no Wikipedia policy applies here because none state with improbable specificity the exact same thing by the technicalities you designate, and furthermore that I'm a malevolent person who is attacking something you like for no reason and with no support or precedent.

And furthermore, that I cheat. This insinuation makes me very angry.

I've actually given you a lot of time and opportunities to make your case. My reasons for everything have been stated plainly. / edg 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

i wasn't trying to make an accusation against you, i apologise if i sounded that way, but you're actually listening to me. i submit, the section can go. i just want to know if i can add a table of the ways scrubs is translated around the world, i mean the name itself.--Jac16888 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
and i'm sorry i said that about you cheating, you just took me by suprise closing the rfc, and i was under a fair amount of stress at the time--Jac16888 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that I can relate to. Sorry to blow up like that. Thanks for explaining.
Hopefully we can work together in the future underless contentious circumstances. :) / edg 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath Attacks against me

Rodent has posted in his talk page that im a lunetic, prostititute, etc. Enough is enough Edgarde please. He has been using wikipedia for months to conduct verbal degrading attacks against me, he is also attempting to identify me through wikipedia and he is placing my life in danger here through current and previous posts. I kindly request that action be finally taken here to stop this once and for all, kind regards.Susanbryce 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Just to update this Rodent has printed two articles that use my name, and are attack articles against me. Rodent has been attascking me for several months and it is obvious that he is using wikipedia as nothing more then a vehicle to launch vile, degrading and personal attacks against me. He has no interest in contributing to wikipedia, his sole purpose is one of degrading me including having called me a prostititute, pedophile, lunitic, idiot, and so forth. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts like this over the last several months. Please help me here as I dont know where to file a complaint to stop this once and for all.

RodentofDeath Attacks against me

I posted the following on Edgardes page as he has been involved in the human trafficking in ageles article for some time, you are also now involved so I thought id post this here too. Rodent has posted in his talk page that im a lunetic, prostititute, etc. Enough is enough please. He has been using wikipedia for months to conduct verbal degrading attacks against me, he is also attempting to identify me through wikipedia and he is placing my life in danger here through current and previous posts. I kindly request that action be finally taken here to stop this once and for all, kind regards. Just to update this Rodent has printed two articles that use my name, and are attack articles against me. Rodent has been attacking me for several months and it is obvious that he is using wikipedia as nothing more then a vehicle to launch vile, degrading and personal attacks against me. He has no interest in contributing to wikipedia, his sole purpose is one of degrading me including having called me a prostititute, pedophile, lunitic, idiot, and so forth. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts like this over the last several months. I should also mention Rodent has previosly posted my street address and identified friends I associate with as part of an attempt to finger me. Please help me here as I dont know where to file a complaint to stop this once and for all. Kind Regards.Susanbryce 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Partial response on User talk:Gscshoyru — Gscshoyru might not want to become further involved. I have a few other editors I want to bounce this off as well. Administrator's Noticeboard doesn't seem interested in policing every little infraction, and Rodent is farming his most aggressive actions out to IP accounts (and soon I would expect, to new, single-purpose ID's). / edg 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: what is your problem?

I give. It seems to be pointless to reason with you, you persist in your personal attacks and refuse to participate in WP:CIVIL discussion. Whatever. Though what you say may be true, unless you actually try to give your words some weight by not attacking other authors or wikipedia with them, then no one will listen to you. Gscshoyru 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — To RodentofDeath [8]

Just to save you some time, it is pointless to reason with RodentofDeath. His goal is to be so generally disruptive and time-consuming that sensible-but-disinterested editors give up (as several have), so he can WP:OWN these articles. He has nothing but time for this activity, and his edits are entirely in bad faith (sue me) so appeals to good sense and decency will be completely ignored until he is at risk, and then gamed with.

My involvement is mostly fixing Rodent's edits. A ban on this account will not be sufficient because this editor appears to create accounts spanning various class A address ranges. The next step would be to develop a complex vandalism case, and obtain some kind of community ban. I'm completely inexperienced with such, and have not time this week for it. Hopefully it will be a lot of fun.

Any opinion on the articles he is currently linking, and his weird offer to videotape? Haven't looked into any of it yet. / edg 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles he links as defense for his own side are mostly based on the government's statements, which he uses as fact. He also tries to say that susanbryce's statements about the rate of death are much too high to make sense. I really have no clue as to whether or not any of what he says is right or not, I'm just attempting to make a legit editor out of him. Seems I'm failing.
Blocking the account and semi-protecting the page may work, it'll force him on to the talk page only, anyway. I have no idea about the videotaping thing, I haven't seen that offer. Additionally... he is kinda right about the WP:COI that susanbryce has, but I'm willing to bet he has a conflict of interest as well, or he wouldn't be quite this persistent. Gscshoyru 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That gives me some ideas already. I'll look into it further when time permits.
If you want to work with Rodent becoming a legit editor, that's great, but be prepared for some frustration. / edg 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks resume

Can You please tell me then how I can complain to the administrators ? Also his user page contains full copies of copyright articles which is in breach of copyright laws as well as wikipedia guidelines. Thankyou, kind Regards.Susanbryce 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard is the usual place for persistent personal attack complaints. The copyvio reports would go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems; Rodent can however use the articles if he can demonstrate that he wrote it himself. / edg 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again Rodentofdeath has posted the same copyright article on his user page, even after it had been removed before and he had been warned on this. He is using this article to continue his personal attacks against me here on wikipedia.Susanbryce 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Current version uses a press release, which is probably not copyvio. I've added a complaint about the persistent attacking behavior to Administrator's Noticeboard. Don't know if they'll intervene at all, but that is the place for this complaint. / edg 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagalog edits

i do wish to commend you on swiftly removing the content added into angeles that was not english. my tagalog isnt that good but it was basically saying that its all lies and stupid/crazy and not happening here, just for the record. thought you might be curious. it definitely didnt belong in the article. RodentofDeath 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks! / edg 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

hey, you have another message in tagalog on angeles talk page. "tayo tayo na lang mga pinoy, kailangan pa bang magsiraan"

the first part is either "we're all pinoy (filipino)" or "we're all only pinoy". i dont understand the second part.RodentofDeath 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you spoke Tagalog. Do you know of any online translation engines for that language? / edg 20:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bryce User page

i have taken the advice of other experienced editors and blanked my home page.

on a side note you can follow my progress on myspace.

i have posted in the admin forum im happy for this matter to go to dispute resolution and have always fully supported that.

Now with that said, once again RodentofDeath has continued with his personal attacks against me, he has added an attack and my name to the human trafficking in angeles article, he is now taking control of this article and turning it into a platform to attack me. Also, i noticed on the admin forum where you referred this matter he has launched another tired of vile attacks against me, and also others too i notice. What I would like explained to me is why he is allowed to just continue these vile, disgusting and degrading attacks and continue to always get away with it? He operates with total impunity here on wikipedia and says and does anything he likes. Even more disappointing is the fact that despite trying my best to be a good contributing Editor here , i find myself under attack that in some way I deserved to be abused, degraded and humiliated across Wikipedia. Its very sad and painful.Susanbryce 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.
I've repeated the proposal for mediation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If RodentofDeath agrees, let me know if you need help with making the request.
I've not been through one of these, but basicly it should be something like what Haemo did on Talk:Angeles City.
This won't be resolved quickly, but there is a process. / edg 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to have any vile degrading remarks he has made about me removed from Wikipedia? it is obvious he is using wikipedia as a vehicle to launch these degrading attacks?Susanbryce 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, can something please be done about the human trafficking in angeles article, he has posted my name all over it and is using it as an attack page against me now.Susanbryce 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Edgarde, RodentofDeath has set up his user page as an attack page against me again, although he has not named me directly, he did post this which makes it obvoius.... here's an incomplete list of the lies found so far on both wikipedia and elsewhere about Angeles.... and this is all lies from one person!!! (seems to be a credibility problem, eh?)

He turned the Human Trafficking in Angeles page into another attack page against me, i reverted it, but im getting no help from anyone here, please help.Susanbryce 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb You again, but RodentofDeath keeps inserting my name and identity all over the Human Traficking in Angeles page, i cant revert any more. He has highjacked the page and is now using it as an attack page against me. He has included numerous lies such as im a Jurnalist which I clearly am not. Hope You can fix this please. kind regards.Susanbryce 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

nice try susan, especially with deliberately spelling journalist wrong. it seems that they think you are a journalist here

"Author of the petition is Australian journalist Susan Bryce who says 30,000 of the prostitutes are young girls." from and even you yourself claim to be a journalist here: (i especially liked the section on propaganda) RodentofDeath 20:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Like An Angel Passing Through My Room

The comment "This is Abba's only song done completely by one person, Frida." is misleading as Benny Andersson is playing keyboards on the track, and is also responsible for the ticking sound (not a metronome).-- 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest RodentofDeath

Now rodentofDeath has admitted ne lives in Angeles, he admits he does business there and he admits he is a regular at the bars trafficking women. he has a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to edit the angles or human trafficking in angeles article. his only only edits on these subjects and he constantly states his involvement in these areas. He constantly defends those involved in pedophilia.kind regardsSusanbryce 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think neither you nor Rodent has a valid COI case. Rodent certainly claims a lot of first-hand knowledge and frequently offers original research, but those things by themselves do not clearly demonstrate COI.
The Administrator's Noticeboard conversation has been archived, and I think they expect you guys to head to Mediation. Would you be interested in initiating this?
I think Mediation relates strictly to article content, not user behavior. / edg 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Yes I would love to go to mediation on this, its something Ive supported for months. Can we please proceed. Can You do it or do I need to do it? Im actually out of the country on a speaking tour to the Universities in NZ, so I dont have much free time at the moment, but Ill make sure to participate and as always be giuded by more experienced Editors.Kid regards.Susanbryce 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me look into it. If I can start this without becoming one of the disputants myself, I'll let you know in a day or two. / edg 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ill try give it a go tomorrow setting it up, i just dont have much time at the moment. I need a bit of free time here for my famly.Susanbryce 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy Project

Sure thing, I'll be happy to help! Gavin Scott 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, if someone keeps adding tagalog to the chat I guess I better update you there.

tayo tayo na lang mga pinoy, kailangan pa bang magsiraan.... we are the only filipinos here, do we have to hurt each other?

so wag tayong magsiraan sana.... I hope we dont hurt each other.

on a side note, its a poor attempt at tagalog, the writer is obviosly not filipino.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanbryce (talkcontribs) 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's helpful to know editors aren't sending "secret coded" instructions. / edg 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on a side note, you could probably ask 20 Filipino to translate this and they will all come up with a slight varient. There is no exact translation here. kind regards.Susanbryce 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Misandry IPs

Hi edgarde, just to let you know I submitted those two IPs ( & to WikiProject on open proxies to confirm that they are open proxies - if the User behind these IPs is Anacapa it would start to really worry me - he never used open proxies before--Cailil talk 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. If you're on this, I'll not bother labeling these so as not to complicate the matter. If there are further IP posts, I'll request page protection. / edg 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


I left a message. I probably should have brought it up on the talk page of the article considering the RFC there. I just didn't realised that was this article. Garion96 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for taking care of this! / edg 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing links

Sorry about that. Since the redirects have been batted around to point at different documents, it didn't occur to me that fixing the links themselves to reflect changes in the redirects would cause a problem. No change in the meaning of your comments was intended.--Father Goose 06:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: See also Erotic art

I feel like this one is a bit of a tangent in Sexual arousal, where the See also list is pretty long already. Also, adding Erotic art opens the door for anything that can be said to cause sexual arousal, whereas up to now all the See also subjects are more directly related to the topic.

Would you be okay with my removing that entry? / edg 06:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see another editor interested. i added to see also so that we can connect related articles together. A navigation template will do it better, you can give a go i think. If we organise articles together articles will improve by themselves. Lara_bran 06:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Made the change. I'm not much for organizing today. I'm more of an alarm bell. Thanks for getting back to me. :) / edg 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As wikiproject sexuality is not active, i would love to see another editor to work with me. I will do only organising and tidying of articles, not for adding any content. Article Sexual pleasure(which includes orgasm, BDSM etc) stub and Sex gel(used for lubrication and birth control) stubs to be created. If you cant help, you can guide me for a help Lara_bran 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Interested I Am

Yes, I am interested in joining the Wikiproject for Family Guy. I have been regularly watching FG reruns on FOX this summer, having seen many season 5 episodes. I'd like to clean up certain FG episode pages because I seem to notice that "cultural references" sections tend to be tagged with "trivia" tags. As an FG fan who enjoys the constant pop culture knockoffs on the show, I'd like to keep cultural references sections as "non-trivial" as possible, as I doubt it'd be constructive to log every single pop culture reference in the show. Thanks for the invitation! I have now particpated. --Andrewlp1991 01:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the response. I find I disagree with your assessment of the situation. In my view his repeated personal attacks - that I am an "arrogant," "obnoxious," "cry-baby" fall into the realm of unacceptable behavior. As he has continued to make such comments after repeated warnings from Nat and myself I find that his actions merit a block. He seems to believe his behavior is... tolerable. I hope you do not. Perspicacite 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me.
I agree Wedineinheck's reactions aren't helping at all, and suggest Wedineinheck has a problem with perspective (perhaps partially because they may be too new here to know what to expect).
But calling good faith (albeit crummy) edits "vandalism" appears to be what set Wedineinheck off on this trajectory. Your 2nd warning starts out good, but then quickly puts this user on the defensive.
I can't insist this wouldn't have happened if you WP:AGF'ed and patiently explained what Wedineinheck did wrong. But Wedineinheck seems to believe they've been unfairly persecuted.
For what it's worth, I've probably done this to new editors as well. It's something to look out for. / edg 09:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: More unsolicited suggestions

Sorry to pile the assigned reading on a new editor, but Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset explains the rules you'll most need to know. Plowing ahead without knowing these conventions is also an option.

If you choose the latter, try to take user warnings in good humor, and ask questions when you don't understand. Perspicacite may not have assumed good faith, but he wasn't just picking a fight either. His intentions were good, and he was trying to do the right thing for Wikipedia.

In situations like this, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks will help smooth things out. / edg 09:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. I am definitely convinced, however, that Perspicacite was trying to pick a fight. I am absolutely not interested about this character, however, and do not wish to further discuss him. Personally, I hate conflicts, and have no time to waste with such individuals. Wedineinheck 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the page, I'll have a look. I am definitely convinced, however, that Perspicacite was trying to pick a fight. I am absolutely not interested about this character, however, and do not wish to further discuss him. Personally, I hate conflicts, and have no time to waste with such individuals. As for my own comments, they were indeed made stricly defensively. As english is not my first language, they may have seemed too unsubtle, but reflect the fact that I did not believe in my contradictor's good faith either. Best, Wedineinheck 10:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me. I think when you get a sense of how complex things can be, you'll have a better idea of where Perspicacite was coming from. It's hard to understand people's intentions sometimes.
I hope the Simplified ruleset helps you a lot. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. / edg 10:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

God's gender

I don't have anything constructive to contribute to that section, so I don't want to tag it again, but generally other Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources, especially when the cited text is also unsourced.

My main reason for {{fact}} tagging the usually male depiction of an officially genderless god statement was to prevent:

  • editors with different interpretations performing conflicting revisions on that section, and
  • other religions from being appended by drive-by editors.

Thanks for all your work on Masculine psychology. / edg 08:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not exactly sure I understood it, though. About sourcing the statement that God is portrayed as male in Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., I suppose it hadn't occurred to me to do so because it's such a given. It would be like writing an article about water and saying, "Human beings need water to live," and then having someone else say the statement must be sourced. It's good to have sources, but sometimes things are so obvious that you just forget to source them because it seems unnecessary. I was raised Catholic, have attended services at Jewish temples and Muslim mosques, and I have never heard God referred to as anything but male in these three religions. -- Andrew Parodi 08:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I worry too much.
Currently envying your User page. / edg 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My dear Edgarde

Hello, I'm YourLord, I was blocked indefinately some time ago for re-creating deleted material. Not a serious crime in my opinion although I admit I did deserve to be blocked for some time. I then proceeded to continue editing as an unregistered user, thus denied the privelages of a registered one. I maintain two IP addresses as I divide my time between two seperate houses, my father's and my mother's. Both own a computer which I frequently use, Wikipedia being one of my preferred websites. I believe you recently labelled me a sockpuppeteer. I understand that using two IP addresses whilst blocked may appear somewhat suspicious but I resent being called a sockpuppet because I do not use several accounts simultaneously. Nor do I maintain an account of any description for that matter. I used to but as you know I was blocked, leading to this whole ghastly affair. As a result of my being declared a sockpuppeteer, a whole category has been created for "Suspected sockpuppets of YourLord" in which my name is connected to several vandal editors which I find grossly offensive. I have denied any connection with these somewhat undesirable users and humbly request that I no longer be referred to by the title of sockpuppeteer. I should also like the aforementioned category to be deleted. Awaiting your response.

YourLord - (seeing as I'm technically not editing as YourLord anymore I don't usually sign myself with this title but I am now so you know who I am) 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All these accounts edit the same subjects, and exhibit the same tendentious behaviour, which you show no interest in changing. The reason you are not repeating the exact behavior for which you were banned for is you cannot recreate articles without an account.
Appeal the ban if you want, but really, it would be better for you find another wiki that appreciates your editing more. / edg 06:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to change my "tendentious" behaviour and might I add that those accounts all seem to edit different subjects to me and only two of them are actually mine. Furthemore they're not actually accounts, just IP addresses. I have on numerous occasions expressed remorse for my deeds and have vowed that I will no longer re-create deleted material should I be unblocked. I didn't actually come here to appeal to be unblocked I just wanted to be unbranded a sockpuppet if that makes sense. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by another wiki? And just out of curiosity how do I appeal the ban?

User:YourLord - 13:22PM - 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sorry, and I Didn't Do It

Thanks for the explanation for why you reversed changes I had made to Self-help (capitalization of section titles). It is a valuable part of my Wikipedia education. I also tried to make the hyphenation more uniform, but neglected to consult MOS and may have done it wrong. Sorry for acting without consulting MOS. In case there is confusion in this regard, the commerical links were not mine. I was actually very tempted to remove them. DCDuring 03:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. I meant to link MOS:CAPS in my edit summary. Your caution with removing content (links included) is sensible, especially for someone starting out — while one was blatantly selling a product, the other was borderline-helpful (tho not uniquely so).
I'm no expert on the Self-help topic, and watch that article mostly for spam, but feel free to message me if you have questions. / edg 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Trivia, however...

Thanks for your comment. Although it is true that Wikipedia doesn't accept petitions, I still think wiping out trivia sections from all articles may be a mistake; Given the broad scope of the subjects of the articles, a trivia section doesn't necessarily affects the quality of such, and even can be relevant to some of them, specially those related to popular culture. -- Araenae 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Please don't tell the people that signed my page that it is wrong. They can do what they want, so please DON'T DO IT AGAIN!! --Alien joe 21:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason people should not be given this information. Looks like I missed one. / edg 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is. Whether or not it conflicts with policy is a matter of opinion, to be expressed at the AfD. The article was made to promote a viewpoint, which your additions hinder. If you think promoting a viewpoint is one of the reasons it should be deleted, then present your opinions at the AfD. That's what it's there for. 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, articles on Wikipedia do not promote a viewpoint. An article should be informative, and not biased. I improved this article. The removal of this information was aggressively POV, and not justifiable. Furthermore most of the signatories were new-ish editors who should not be sheltered from this information. / edg 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's not an article. The viewpoint isn't on or in an article. It's about Wikipedia policy. So the closest classification is essay. Essays can be POV. Secondly, the article already promotes a viewpoint. You're not changing that by posting these links. And, if you want to inform editors of information, the place to do it is on the talk page. Yes, I'm aware that they're relatively new editors, or else they wouldn't be signing a petition. But for that very reason they see your edits as an insult to what they're trying to accomplish, and the article is about to be deleted anyway. So I'm asking you to leave them alone, out of human kindness. 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying pages in Wikipedia space cannot be edited by editors with different points of view? And you're saying information about conflicting points of view should be confined to the talk page? And new editors should not see these points of view because it is an "insult" to the WP:POVPUSH?
You have a lot of interesting rules. And a feel for dictatorship. / edg 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Any page can be edited by anyone. Essays on one point of view, however, generally aren't edited by people with the opposite point of view. In the case of an essay, yes, the opposite point of view is best kept to the talk page. These aren't rules. They're common courtesy. If you wrote an essay on something I disagreed with, I would not edit it to express my viewpoint.
I'm not trying to argue policy with you. This is basically a non-issue with regard to policy. The petition will be gone soon. Dictators don't ask for kindness. I am. 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying it's a non-issue, so I should not edit the article. However, you will kindly make the effort of deleting my contributions. In the AfD, you agreed the page be reformatted as a discussion; however, you delete discussion that suggests there may be another point of view. Be forbidding the mention of other legitimate points of view, this page is no longer a point of view or a discussion. It is propaganda.
Dictators ask for kindness when it serves their cause to do so. / edg 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I agreed that the page be reformatted as an essay and moved to a user subpage. And yes those can be one-sided, and very often are. People with all points of view discuss them, but on their talk pages.
I'm not trying to serve myself. Call off your dogs and listen. I'm trying to be nice to people who are relatively new and didn't know any better. The page is already getting deleted. What more do you want? 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I would like you to do the following:
  • Stop deleting contributions from articles simply because they are contrary to your agenda. It this spirit, please also refrain from rationalizing other reasons to do so.
  • Stop making insulting comments about people who don't share your POV. (I can provide diffs if you are oblivious to this behavior.)
  • Refrain from aggressive edits to style guidelines and policy articles. You seem to understand what Talk pages are for.
  • Recognize that Wikipedia may set rules pertaining to a house style and editorial policy.
  • Recognize that other people have agreed on Wikipedia style and policy, and that aggressive, obstinate editing makes you neither representative of a blossoming new consensus, nor entitled to get your way. There are means of making a case for policy changes, and you seem to know them.
In exchange for this I will assume good faith in presuming your efforts have not been intended to foist your POV on the unknowing, and your sole intent is as stated, to protect poor defenseless newbies from being insulted. That is very noble. Hats off to you sir! / edg 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying you're making edits to this guy's petition because I made aggressive edits to a guideline?
I don't need to do anything in order to deserve your assumed good faith. That's something you should always be doing. But in answer to those other issues which you seem to have brought into this:
  • I didn't delete your contributions because of any agenda. I'm trying to be welcoming and nice to relatively new editors. I'm sorry if you don't believe me, but it's the truth.
  • I wasn't trying to be insulting. If you're referring to the mob thing, I was pointing out a problem with the current situation at Wikipedia. I wasn't trying to group everyone opposed to my point of view. There are certain people who act a certain way, though, and those are the ones to whom I was referring. If you consider yourself to be among that group, then that's, for lack of better phrasing, your problem.
  • The only "aggressive" edit I made was the status change I made to the trivia guideline. And while I wouldn't do that again, I also can't entirely regret it. I still feel there's a lack of consensus for the guideline, and I don't think it's something easy to prove, with the current lack of guideline processes at Wikipedia. Right now, anyone can promote or demote a guideline at any time, so I did it because I felt it made sense. Whoever decided that there was a consensus to begin with did something similar.
  • I'm fully aware that Wikipedia can set guidelines and policies. That's neither here nor there.
  • I realize other people have agreed. But still other people disagree. I have no qualms about your opinion of me. If you consider me loud and obstinate, that's your business. If it makes you feel any better, just remember that I'm allowed to be that way, and have not violated any guideline or policy in doing so. Hey, I consider you to be [not my favorite person, or words to that effect, i.e., personal attack removed]. I recognize those as merely my opinions though, and the actions which caused those feelings in me are still entirely within your rights. My feelings are something I simply have to deal with. So are yours.
  • OK, enough, both of you. Look at this poor guy's talk page already! He's going to get that lovely orange bar and say "Great, I've got mail, I love mail!", and then it's just going to be you two bickering back and forth. Imagine his disappointment. Seriously, this isn't the right forum for this argument. Please civil down a bit and take it to a relevant talk page. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  05:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, my bad. I should've ended this a long time ago. I'm out. 05:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That's going to be a lot of disappointment. Sorry everyone! / edg 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So I'm not sure where that leaves us. All these issues are beside the point. I would like you to be nice to other people. That's all. I'm not asking for anything for myself. Recognize the edits on their own merit, instead of judging the person making them. Omitting that added info is simply the nice thing to do, no matter what you think of me. 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You're making a number of presumptions about my intentions. I hope this is not to avoid considering what I am telling you. I have stated my reasons for my contribution to Save the trivia, and it is certainly not because you edited another article. However, I am asking you to refrain from tendentious editing. If you could hear only one thing I am saying, I would like it to be that. / edg 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. But argue with me on my talk page if you like. Let's leave this guy alone. 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Essays are personal statements, but they are not intended to represent policy, and to avoid their improper use that way, it is well to indicate clearly when something is being proposed that is not currently accepted. Assistance of people who dont agree can be very helpful with that. For a purely personal statement, use a subpage of your user page. DGG (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Conflicing policy
Alternative sites that will accept trivia

User talk:Alien joe

No problem. I thought it was getting to be a little much. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're back

I guess you missed the question I asked you in the AfD. You commented with some kind of implied distaste about the Family Guy wiki transwiki. I asked you what you meant by this, but never got a reply. Can you fill me in on this? Preferably on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy, but if private is better for you that's fine. / edg 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day to you too. My problem with the FG transwiki is how lazily it was done. Select all, copy, paste. There was no thought given to whether or not the FG wiki has the same templates Wikipedia has. If I ever do such a slipshod transwiki to Memory Alpha, shoot me. ShutterBugTrekker 14:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's my first such effort and I basicly followed instructions. FWIW, I spent a lot of time linking the Edit history on the Talk page, but as for the article, I don't know how the Family Guy Wiki project wants to handle alien templates, and did not want to make this decision for them. It would have been easy to substitute all those templates and leave a lot of good looking but non-reusable crud. I could have began duplicating all the used Wikipedia templates on the Family Guy Wiki, and have all this work wasted if they decided not to accept the article or use the templates.
What I chose to do instead was leave a message on their main Talk page asking what they wanted done. So far there's been no reply. I create their Transwiki log and I'm offering to help in the way the regulars at that wiki want, rather than imposing my contribution on them. Technically, translating the imported article to their system is entirely their responsibility, not mine, but I'll help out any way I can.
And after all this, I don't really like having my work disparaged. Not that you care. Keep it up and I guess I'll just have to get used to it, but I'm asking you to cut it out. / edg 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
First you asked me to elaborate then you ask me to cut it out. In the words of 7 of 9, I will comply with both requests. ShutterBugTrekker 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Buddhism tag

You do realize that the only reason Lisa's page was tagged is because she is in the "Fictional Buddhists" category. Nobody from the Buddhism WP will do anything to improve the article, they just want to increase the pages within their range. As you can probably tell, I have little patience for projects that do that, such as the LGBT project tagging Homer's Phobia the day it became an FA (AND including it in THEIR achievements list) and the Alt Rock Project tagging Homerpalooza. -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to me. I didn't have a sense of your reasons, and what you're saying is all new to me.
I think a lot of the WikiProjects do very little. I think someone like you (correct me if I'm assuming too much) would contribute a lot even if you weren't involved in WP:SIMPSONS (and for all I know you aren't; I haven't looked it up). Anyone sensible who wants to find out who did the actual work will just click "History" or lookit the Talk page chat.
However, I think Homer's Phobia is legitimately an article of concern for the LGBT project, even if they only watch the page and never contribute. Lisa is for some audiences the most famous public Buddhist, and representative of Buddhism-identified kids at many a high school IMO, so this should be of interest to the Buddhism WikiProject. I don't think any one WikiProject should WP:OWN any article — in many cases, WikiProject members aren't the biggest contributors anyway — and it's obvious on a Simpsons page that WP:DOH is the most intimately involved.
I'd like us to put up with other WikiProjects adding their banners. If they use other people's work to make a Potemkin Village achievement list, that's their business. Could you tolerate this? I think if something like this went to dispute resolution (which I'm not planning or anything, just giving an example), I doubt the outcome would favor excluding other Project banners.
I also think it has the potential to enhance some The Simpsons articles (especially the episode pages). If Lisa Simpson has a big impact in the Buddhist community, would we presumably non-Buddhist Simpsons fans know best? I'm not quite deluded enough to believe the {{WikiProject Buddhism}} tag will bear fruit (and besides, their tag is too long, someone should tell them), but I think having them on the page is better than not having them. / edg 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I realize it is kind of WP:OWN but when one project does all the work, and then another comes along and adds it to their list of accomplishments when in reality they had nothing to do with getting the page promoted, it is pretty annoying. Especially when it is such a large scale Project. The Buddhism WP tagging characters would be like the Simpsons WP tagging every single guest star, which wouldn't make a lot of sense. And you are correct, I would still do work on a lot of Simpsons articles, even if I wasn't part of WP:SIMPSONS. Speaking of which, we currently have few active members and I have noticed that you edit a lot of Simpsons articles... -- Scorpion0422 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Working with others is always annoying. I'm getting used to there being a lot of annoying editors on Wikipedia. I'm probably one of them, Ed thought philosophically.
If that was an invitation, thanks, but I feel like there are good editors working on Simpsons articles and I'm not very needed. I'm currently doing too much work at WikiProject Family Guy and a sense of fool's errand is really kicking in. Besides, there are bigger Simpsons fans than me. Fans that own a TV, for instance.
On the subject at hand, I think I appreciate your distaste for admitting other Project tags, and that we're still in disagreement on whether this should be permitted. My feeling is the bulk of the work is done by editors, not by projects, and claiming turf isn't taking credit for building the neighborhood.
I think the impact upon Buddhism from Lisa may be greater and more relevant than the impact upon The Simpsons from of Danny DeVito's appearances in as many episodes, but if WP:DOH tagged DeVito's page, my main question would be why 775 articles wasn't enough for them.
So my position is it's mostly no big deal, maybe slightly helpful, certainly the decent thing to do. Is there a way we can accept our shiftless cousins on Talk pages?
Sorry to write so much. / edg 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as too many editors. The way I see it with the Simpsons WP tagging pages is that we are a small scope WikiProject and thus smaller things mean more. But in the Buddhism WP's case, it has a larger scope. However, I do see your point and if you wish to readd the tag to the page, then feel free to do so. -- Scorpion0422 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for giving this so much consideration. I'll restore The Buddha in a few minutes if no one else gets to it sooner.
Maybe some day when I'm feeling less burned I'll consider helping WP:SIMPSONS more directly. I'm just a bit overextended for now. / edg 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Miscellaneous hangon}}

Trial and error incantations won't work. What you need to do is rewrite the page as something that's not a petition. / edg 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave up on template:Miscellania hangon, realizing by requesting it would only create an article. --Alien joe 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I'm just saying, if you sent 10,000 signature to Jimbo, it still wouldn't get you what you want. The best you'd get is a link to WP:CONSENSUS.
If you want to save that page, the course of action would be to delete the entire Sign here section, and change the intro to say "This used to be a petition ..."
I realize that seems like throwing out the very point of that document, but you have to realize, the signatures don't get you anything, except deleted for being a petition. One way to encourage participation might be to suggest visitors add to the List of reasons section instead.
That's the best suggestion I can come up with. Anything short of this radical change (and soon) will result in the page being deleted. When you've made this change, announce it at the bottom of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Save the trivia, and maybe the train can be stopped. Not sure, might be too late already, but now has a better chance than later will.
For what it's worth, there are several editors who gather on various sub-pages for discussion how to change the trivia policy. I'm sure you'll be invited sooner or later. / edg 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer a petition!

Getting there, but the "Sign here" instruction will be considered a de facto petition even if it says it's not. I would delete that whole Users who support trivia section (even the title is thin ice), and replace it with opinion, or nothing for now.

What you might get away with might be adding "Visitors to this page are encouraged to add reasons to this section." to the List of reasons section. / edg 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Griffin

Yeah, so what if I used an edit summary? It is really important, and so what if it's fictional? It still can be described as well as normal characters. There is nothing "wow" about me using edit summary, edit summaries are important, without it edit war could come. TheBlazikenMaster 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but it's a bit unprofessional, and may make editing the article feel a bit less hospitable, especially for women, and nerds of all genders who might identify with Meg. Not all of us were popular growing up, and some of us object to the social hierarchy that this type of judgement enforces.
None of this is as nearly serious as using an Edit summary to attack another user, and it wasn't something I felt a need to comment on (until I read yr message to Cromulent), but per WP:CIVIL and maybe WP:other_policy, it's something worth refraining from.
My $0.02, YMMV, and so forth. / edg 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. TheBlazikenMaster 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

'scool, bro. / edg 14:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I should have just left the edit summary as "even if she did she couldn't" and not have the 4 last words. TheBlazikenMaster 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: YourLord case

Thanks for reviewing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YourLord. The report is made from months-old memories, so I couldn't quite put together a coherent case with current data. I was feeling bad for the poor admin who had to figure it all out. / edg 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm not an admin, but I do sockpuppet investigations because I find them interesting and most admins don't really care about them. I was not interested in whether these IPs were actually YourLord - that's hard to figure out - but rather I monitored the recent edits, and I found that many of them were problematic. Also, as you noted, YourLord's apparent comments seem to point to his own guilt. Shalom Hello 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not interesting. I was just saying that's some good work you're doing. / edg 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Boogiepop Phantom

Hi. In looking over the GAC report to tie up loose ends, I noticed that you tagged this article as under review ten days ago, but there doesn't appear to be a review. Have you forgotten about it? LaraLove 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was just wondering how you were coming along with the good article review of Boogiepop Phantom? Hellspawn 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy Networks list

Limiting the list of Grey's Anatomy#Networks to English language only is arbitrary and perhaps WP:BIASed. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. / edg 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're not a TV guide, and I would further say they shouldn't be there. You should know I reject any accusations of bias, which I think are rather unfair. Surely if you're reading an English-language article, you'd be primarily interested in an English-language version of the show. If you wanted it in another language, you could check that article. Please consider being more careful when throwing things like that. Docta247 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
When you say "accusions of bias", you may be treating this word differently than me. I wasn't trying to imply something about you personally. If it was taken that way, you have my apologies.
I'm specificly referring to systemic bias that favors english speakers, per WP:CSB; it's not official policy, but it is a commonly-held value, and is consistent with WP:BIAS. There are actually several reasons one would read the english-language article besides looking for information on the english-language broadcasts, one of which is that has more articles, and another being articles in different languages contain different details (cf. ast:Anatomía de Grey). It is worth noting that many contributors to english Wikipedia do not speak english as a first language.
All that said, I still favor deleting that section, and said as much in Talk:Grey's Anatomy#Networks. This has tended to be an unpopular action in other articles, and I'm looking forward to finding out how the Grey's editors handle it. / edg 11:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
An apology really isn't necessary. In fact, I apologise if I worded my reaction too strongly. What is important is that the word "biased" has very strong connotations, which is why I suggested caution. Back on the topic, I honestly don't think that only dealing with English language airings of the show on an English language article has any systemic bias with reference to WP:CSB. Even if people not using the English language were using Wikipedia as an EPG, which I've said I agree with your position on, why would they check the English language article? Docta247 13:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is "english language only" is a false standard to limit the growth of this section. Given that option, my position would be either it all stays or it all goes. / edg 13:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

your request and my error

right--for some reason I had thought your were Eyrian, returning to continue he discussion--I actually undeleted it, but then deleted it again, and I suggest asking at the Administrator's Notice board, WP:ANB, since I am unsure--he chose to delete his user pages when he left WP, and he may have had the right to do so. As I had frequently been his opponent in debates on this subject, I do not wish to act alone. But it is a useful essay. DGG (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DGG is being commendably considerate of the right to vanish, but actually this is a subpage and is GFDL'd so I've restored it and moved it ot User:Edgarde/IPC for you. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Curious about this [edit summary]. Are there Pokemon who are somehow homosexual? I presume this would be either symbolic or just fan lore, but I'm not versed in the critters and have no way to evaluate this new info. Should WP:LGBT be alerted? / edg 13:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About your question.

As you might or might not know I do compare Pokémon to animals as they are creatures from another planet. But no, it shouldn't be alerted to that, it was just a creative edit summary, like most of yours are. TheBlazikenMaster 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in on this. I had no clue, but was enjoying the image of Pikachu et al going all Brokeback Mountain. Maybe there's some slash fic on the subject. / edg 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I Take Thee Quagmire

I think the nearest guideline would be WP:TRIVIA. The Kebert Xela point should definitely stay, as it has real-world context. Some of the "cultural references" were too skant or straw-grasping - only direct references (such as "Tomahawk'd") should be refered to. Will (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

-WarthogDemon 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ur Gay

In my opinion, you are gay --Number 1 Stunna 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Turning off tags . . .

To "turn off" a tag without actually removing the markup that makes it, you should use the "nowiki" modifier. Example:

The sky is blue[citation needed].

The sky is blue{{fact}}.

Edit the text and you'll see what I mean. This, to me, would be the same as removing the tag, though. Into The Fray T/C 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction to the above: You need to use the hidden text markup, not the nowiki markup. Sorry for my confusion. Into The Fray T/C 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but that's not really what I mean. I didn't want them to go away for everybody, just this one reader.
If I recall correctly, a user account can be configured to not display citation links (css maybe? I've never looked into it). I was wondering if the user who is so offended by these tags could be given an option for them to not be displayed. I'm guessing this is not possible. / edg 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
CSS editing is beyond my expertise. You might be right, but I doubt whether it's possible to turn one template off without turning them all off. Anyway, you might rephrase your question at the helpdesk because, despite WinCamXP's dubious vote of confidence, I'm not an expert. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Into The Fray T/C 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me on this, but I'm gonna give up on this one. If it's not a standard procedure, it's not practical for the usage I intended. Anyway, the moment for this idea has more or less passed. / edg 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In My Life

Hey, I responded to your post on the talk page! I only say that 'cause I know they don't send alerts or anything. I look forward to your response! CinnamonCinder 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't looking for an escalation, and I'm not mad or upset or anything. I was just letting you know that if you wanted to respond or share your thoughts that it was welcome and I wouldn't view it as a heated battle with negative feelings. I wasn't trying to draw you in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

your proposal

see my talk page. DGG (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Your wonderful comment, "please don't make me learn any more about The Beatles" made me laugh a lot, and I thank you very much. :)


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

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


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

That might a matter of perspective. I'm simply using language other editors might understand. Many editors' opinions are being handwaved on the Talk page for that template, and I'm not seeing much concern expressed for their opinions being dismissed. Is this template truly a "minor issue" for you? The broken template has certainly received its share of complaints. / edg 00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, considering this edit summary, yes the term "pedantic" is entirely appropriate. / edg 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "pedantic"? (I'm not being sarcastic.) It's defined as "ostentatious in one's learning" or "overly concerned with minute details or formalisms." No matter who's right, all of us are paying the same amount of attention to these details (but you don't see me calling your concerns "pedantic"). It's entirely possible for two reasonable people (or groups of people) to disagree with one another.
2. I (and others) are arguing our points, not dismissing yours. Not once did I deem opposing viewpoints "pedantic" (or similar) or scold someone expressing them.
3. How is the template "broken"? —David Levy 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons

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

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

Hiding {{fact}} and similar templates

You do this by adding the line

.Inline-Template {display:none}

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

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


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

Image:Santana album 1969.jpg‎

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

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

question : image

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

Image:Phillips Michelle Victim.jpg could use one as well. The only exceptions would be art that is free use (or otherwise GFDL-compatible), which practically no album covers are. Wikipedia is enforcing non-free content rules more strictly now that it did a year ago. Legally this is understandable and necessary, but it has caused much frustration for image uploaders.
For other non-free images (musician promo photos, for instance), use {{Non-free media rationale}}. (example) / edg 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Good FUR. There is a possible second problem with the Santana cover.
Album covers greater than 315px longest @ 72dpi are considered more than is needed for fair use, and may be deleted. Some discussion of this is on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 26#Need_guidance_on_WP:NFCC.233b. This is especially a concern for album covers because anything big enough to be printed out for a satisfactory-looking CD cover can be claimed to aid piracy, and the record industry is famously litigious. I degraded a bunch of Pink Floyd album covers to address exactly that concern — an item was [tagged for deletion simply for being too big.
Having to do this sucks of course, but since the Santana image has been tagged for deletion once, it's probably in someone's watchlist. In the event it gets tagged for size, I have some instructions on Image:Pinkfloyd_50.jpg#Resolution_degrade.
Sincere thanks for your contributions. / edg 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks a lot for your helpful help - - - i had a look at the floyd covers so, from now on, i will stay under the 315 rule ('s ok for me: if i need a bigger cover, i can find it on the net anywhere) + i will put a fur on michelle, oops kernitou talk 12:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
santana: done (310x310): too bad, the details are so great!!! kernitou talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
michelle: done kernitou talk 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes

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

Remember me?

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

Thanks for messaging me. No hard feelings whatsoever. I'd actually gotten so used to hostile correspondence that none of it seemed far from ordinary. This more than compensates. / edg 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
141. Was rude to Edgarde
just kidding. Thank you for your reply, i really don't know what came over me those few weeks, i was snapping at everyone, and i'm sorry that included you. Not any more though, i'm new and improved. Sorry again, and thank you--Jac16888 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper Canvassing for Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

from User talk:Wedineinheck‎

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

Please consider Wikipedia's rules on canvassing. Deletion discussions are not polls, so votestacking is a disservice to your cause, especially if it is determined you are canvassing to influence the results. / edg 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware of any such Wiki prohibition. I'm going to research that right now. Thanks. --Ludvikus 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've read the rule. You're mistaken in it's application to me. I've contact that One editor who has actually Used this Category. Accordingly, unless he knows that it's up for Deletion, his use of it is meaningless. So you are mistaken. --Ludvikus 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've also just placed the proper notice on the Deletion discussion page. --Ludvikus 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Rule against canvassing?

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

Exception(s) to the rule

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

Please note carefully the exceptions to the general rule - and examine more precisely what you believe I did wrong. Thereafter I expect you to get back to me with an appropriate Wikipedian response. Thank you, --Ludvikus 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with these rules, and telling an editor how to vote in a deletion discussion is fairly blatant canvassing. The category does not seem to be created by Wedineinheck. What exception do you claim? / edg 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Nonesense. He's using the Category. You are being Pedantic. We are not in front of a USA voting booth. The guy is a User of the Category. He clearly believes in it. So you are playing with formalities. I'm not Telling him how to Vote. I'm telling him that he will not be able to Classify his characters under that Antisemitic Category unless he Votes Not to Delete. Cann't you see the point. The guy is already Converted User of the System. So are you going to Split Hairs with me? You are simply Wrong, and I hope you can admit it.
And if you insist on splitting hairs - look carefully at the word "multiple". Contacting One Editor is not Multiple. Or what do you think? One editor is the same as Multiple editors? --Ludvikus 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Soliciting a vote from someone known in advance to favor a certain outcome is blatantly votestacking. I'm not really interested in arguing this. I just wanted you to be aware that you may be crossing a line. / edg 01:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. And after carefully studying your view, I've come to the conclusion that I've done the right thing. And for the record, here's the first part of the Wiki rule your concerned with (showing the footnotes):
    '''[[Canvassing]]''' is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence
     a community discussion.
     <ref>Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to
     automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.</ref>
     Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written
     to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and
     are generally considered disruptive.
     This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing.
     <ref>On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards
     an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community.
     An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.
     Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved.
     If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are
     contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."
     See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#StrangerInParadise is disruptive]].</ref>
Third opinion: WP:CANVASSING states

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

Therefore, Ludvikus did not break the rule in its literal sense, but, as a general rule of "Wikiquette" telling a user to vote a certain was in a discussion is frowned upon. To explain further, the message was only placed on one user's talk page, so it is not canvassing (at least described word-for-word in the canvassing policy), but it is something that is generally looked upon with differing degrees of dislike. Had Ludvikus placed the message on multiple users' talk pages, then it would be a clear violation. As it stands, however, while Ludvikus did not violate the policy, I suggest that they refrain from posting messages like that on talk pages. Hope that's clear enough, and happy editing, ( arky ) 02:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the Rationality that Wikipedia is producing. First of all, I had no idea of the existence of this rule. And I'm glad to have learned of it this early. The principle I operate under is Fairness - which is at the basis of all systems reflecting any degree of Justice.
Now back to my point. I think it is consistent with the Canvassing rule at Wikipedia for me to contact any editor who is now actively using the Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. And that telling such an editor to Vote to Keep is certainly not Disruptive. It is absurd to think that by so saying I'm influencing that editor. Such an editor obviously believes in the legitimacy of the Category - otherwise why is (s)he using it? --Ludvikus 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, it is perfectly OK for me to go to the Talk page and Solicit Votes - to Vote to Keep the Category - or does anyone advise me not to do so? If not, why not? --Ludvikus 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    It may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion and you may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When You Wish Upon a Weinstein

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

{{WikiProject Family Guy}} template

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

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

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


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

If you value talk page discussion so much, you could have started that discussion instead of reverting and accusing me of vandalism. / edg 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you objecting to my not putting my comment in the correct section? / edg 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we were editing at the same time. Look, it may one day be big enough to justify its own article, right now... no. Until then it should stay where it is. 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't move the discussion to my Talk page after telling me to discuss this in Talk:Erotica. / edg 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My comments here merely reflected what i've already said on the talk page. I was responding to your comments on my talk page. So, my comments here were just comments about your comments. In the end, I don' want to edit war, bit i do feel that that section adds to the article. 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. This suggest you are going against WP:CONSENSUS. Please don't restore it. Better to start a stub article and link it from Erotica. / edg 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on that section. There is merely edit warring and bullying. I will report you for violations of 3RR if you continue to revert the article. 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Protection requested and edit war reported here 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on that section. There is merely edit warring and bullying. I will report you for violations of 3RR if you continue to revert the article. 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this suggests a terrible lack of perspective. I have made only one edit ever to this section. Since then I have discussed this with you on talk pages, and made suggestions. I really resent being accused of "edit warring and bullying". / edg 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies if you were offended. I don't think there is consensus here. Can we agree to leave the information there until there is some resolution about where to put it? 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3RR.
Your apology would seem more sincere if you
  • weren't asking me to "agree to" leave the article the way you want it,
  • had not placed a bogus {{editprotected}} template (which is certainly either ignorance or vandalism),
  • had not made a manipulative WP:RFPP request,
  • had not threatened to report me repeatedly over bogus infractions,
  • had not made Edit summaries describing edits by others as "vandalism", and
  • had not repeatedly editing against obvious consensus, beyond 3RR.
And yet you accuse me of "edit warring and bullying". My most constructive suggestion for you at this point would still violate WP:CIVIL, but I sincerely do hope you get the kind of help you need.
It would also be nice if you registered an account. / edg 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alleged disruption message posted on my Talk page

You seem to think that a message was left here that wasmeant for me. And you seem to have posted it on my page. I have no idea what your talking about - and I wish you had not done that. You should contact the person who sent it and tell them that they have made a mistake. --Ludvikus 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was clearly meant for you — examine the diff. Since Jreferee is answering a question for which you solicited an answer, I thought it would be polite to pass it along. Sorry if this causes problems — in the future I won't bother. / edg 02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It was reckless of you to simply post an apparent editors threat to Block a user without the appropriate precaution that it be noticed by the parties involved. You should not have done that Cut & Paste. Since I'm not an inexperienced User, I was easily able to find out what has been done. But such reckless action could cause problems for another. Why didn't you simply tell the two parties what had happened? What you did is improperly fix an administrators un-sent apparent notice. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain to you? --Ludvikus 03:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I assumed you would understand. You have my apologies. / edg 03:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies are not necessary, if your intent was to do good, which I now think it was. However, do you understand my point about the problems that could result? --Ludvikus 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP

Could you please keep an eye on my talk page? You know very well, that my edit summary was all according to rules. And you also know very well it wasn't rude either. But I really can't handle this IP alone, that IP just won't leave me alone. TheBlazikenMaster 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I do watch your talk page, I don't watch your edits — stalking is work and I'm lazy — so I can't comment on the Edit summary in question. The IP is certainly in the wrong for edit warring on your Talk page. However, for what it's worth, working cooperatively often means trying to understand editors who assume bad faith about us. They're worth listening to even if it's just to figure how to work sociably with editors who are easily tiffed off. I must admit this is not one of my best skills, and not my favorite part of being on Wikipedia.
If delete/"I am right" just tiffs the IP further off, try asking questions to find out how the IP interprets the incident. If the IP persists in revert/"no you're wrong!", you can always ask him not to post to this page anymore. That's more of a last resort tho. / edg 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Burusera - Full quote

I happened to run across this source while researching some cites for the lolicon article--there was a bit of original research that I was hoping to turn into something viable (and I succeeded). The source mentioned burusera, and when I wikilinked it, lo and behold, there was already a Wikipedia article. Coincidentally, another article mentioned the panties in vending machines. The quote: "Japan is known for its libertine view of sex and fondness for bizarre fetishes, such as a craving by men for girls' panties, which were sold in vending machines just a few years ago." -Jmh123 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This is added to the article. / edg 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


ok i've revised those edits. didn't realize that guy was part of a project as he never explained himself. Grande13 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit.

Could you tell me how exactly this discussion can help the article? This article isn't about if the e-mail is fake or not, so I can't see the use. Info like that isn't encyclopedic. TheBlazikenMaster 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stan Thompson reversion

First of all you just threw out a lot of my work.

Second, this is not a real person, and Wikipedia is not a detective agency.

The Stan Thompson gag was in a episode years ago. My edits retained this as a footnote. It is not being thrown out. This has nothing to do with "canon". / edg 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Meg Griffin

I appreciate you taking the opportunity to talk to me rather than just engaging in reverts when it comes to Meg. As I pointed out on the page's talk section, Family Guy is filled with strange, offbeat (and yet canon) items. In fact, these one-time jokes are how the show in many cases establishes how events came to pass; the plain and simple fact of the matter is that if the show says it (especially, in my opinion, if it does so outside of the obvious cutaways), we have to assume that it's factually canon unless a clear and present outside source says otherwise. I bring to mind several other examples that come into my mind- Stewie's head shape, Cleveland's slurred speech, and how Joe Swanson became originally handicapped are all canon items that originated as the same sort of one-off joke we're discussing at present time. Do we have an actual, outside source, from the show, that clearly and conclusively has stated Meg's parental heritage is not based upon Stan Thompson? 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have an actual, outside source, from the show, that clearly and conclusively states that Meg is a real person, so that information like this is significant, and her article falls under WP:BLP and not WP:WAF? Do we have such a source stating this information is consistent with the rest of the show, and affects how the character is written in other episodes?
I really don't wish to revive this seemingly endless, non-productive discussion. I think a consensus can be arrived at via WP:WAF, but for a few editors holding out that Family Guy is a live newscast of a real family.
Also, I'm somewhat ticked off that you undid a large number of my edits over this petty nonsense. I'm not reverting this anymore. You win. / edg 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Come now, Edgarde, you and I both know we're talking about the canonical status of in-universe information, related to the fictional entities on Family Guy. I am going to apologize about the other information that was reverted- it was entirely unintentional. Again, I am sorry about the accidental reversion of your other work, because it does belong here. This isn't about winning or losing, just about what is, or is not. The show has stated that Peter is not her father, so do you not agree that, in an infobox of parental lineage, that accuracy to the show should be maintained? 04:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think information this insignificant should be added to the infobox. I think it is sufficient to mention this business in the article, or in this case a footnote. / edg 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
But then of course we run into the problem of (in-universe) accuracy. It is indeed a tricky balancing act- that of maintaining the standard of both brevity and being on-point. I think you've done a great job of that, with of course our small disagreement being the only sticking point here. I just don't think it would be accurate if we didn't include Meg's (in-universe) real father in the infobox. And in reality, it seems that it might even be better to have just the brief inclusion of the name, rather than an entire paragraph dedicated to the article. I will, actually, let you decide on this one- you've got a good eye for what should and should not be when it comes to Wikipedia, so, after our 3RR period is up, I won't put the infobox back, if you change it. 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop your edit warring on erotica and work towards consensus. South Philly 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent revert -- I'd hit 3 reverts and was wondering what to do. Do you think the two users are socks? I'm not sure... Gscshoyru 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just got here and haven't checked anything, the timing alone would suggest puppetry of some sort. South Philly is the editor who originally entered this information. / edg 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... Gscshoyru 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's diffs and I'll write up the report? / edg 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I shall do so. Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll be going slow on reverts. South Philly will probably bring in a third account when Student erotica hits 3, so no point in trying to time him out. / edg 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe so. Though that would probably prove our point most certainly... in any case the report is posted. here. Tell me if I'm missing anything. Gscshoyru 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, your version is much better than mine. I still have quite a bit to learn on how to do all this stuff, but I'm learning. In any case, someone has noticed, so that's good. Gscshoyru 05:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Threaded discussion in SP report comments

I think it's a bad idea to debate with the accused within Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly. Answering legit questions is a good thing, but responding to (the inevitable) defensive comments just makes the report longer, and less likely to be read by an admin. WP:SSP is fairly backlogged now, so avoiding extraneous chat is a courtesy to whoever is doing this work.

No biggie. Just a suggestion. / edg 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for it. I just have this... compulsion to answer questions. But I shall abide by it. Gscshoyru 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I do appreciate that you are absorbing the brunt of the invective from this character, probably because the report is filed in your name. I hope this isn't too much of a pain. / edg 04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Plus what you've done to my report is a learning experience for me, so next time I will know how to make these things. Besides, what's the worst he could possibly do to me without getting himself blocked? Gscshoyru 04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation format

Edgarde, I'm totally confused about one of the citations in the Stewie article:

A. Delarte, "Nitpicking Family Guy: Season 4" in Bob's Poetry Magazine, 03.January 2006: 111, 131, 141, 181, 211, 221, 241, 261

I can pull up the issue in my browser, but it only has 32 pages. I thought, maybe you have to subtract 100, and sure enough, Stewie is mention on page 11. But not on page 31, and there is no page 41! How do I make those numbers into page numbers? Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are doing anything wrong. That PDF is only 32 pages, and of those, only pp. 10-26 are about Family Guy. I have no idea what those numbers are. A reference to "Bob's Poetry Magazine" was added to nearly every FG article, and I don't think it's a very good one — self-published, superficial, not at all scholarly. I've removed it from a few articles after reading thru each to determine the link didn't support anything. / edg 07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

L Word question

I thought perhaps you could help me direct this question to the right place, since apparently Talk:The L Word wouldn't be the place for it:

In season 3, Tina hires Joyce Wischnia as her divorce lawyer, but suddenly in the first episode of season 4 she's Bette's lawyer and she counsels Tina to get a lawyer other than Richard (and I don't even know who Richard is). Did I miss something or did the writers screw up?

Thanks for your help. Donnabella 23:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


I think such a highly promoted episode such as the 100th getting leaked is quite notable, while I only posted the link to confirm it existed for the people that kept removing the statement. I feel its notable, and various other pages comment on leaked episodes such as dexter, 24, and more. Although getting leaked is a newsworthy an notable item by itself. I agree no info such as plot details and findings should come from the link, but noting that it was leaked a few weeks early seems to violate no rules. —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable. One year from now this will be too unimportant to call trivia. Promo items go online all the time — it only becomes notable when it has some impact on the product, and the impact itself would need to be sourced. / edg 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I'm not disputing anything, but just so you know, the assessment importance doesn't need to reflect a real-world ranking. I would say "Top" importance articles would those subject to high levels of attention and inquiry. My favorite example would be anything mentioned in a Presidential speech.

Another example, were there a Microsoft WikiProject, Microsoft Windows might get "Top" importance, where Bill Gates might get "Mid". A Biography WikiProject might give Bill Gates a "High".

I think a subject like Family Guy should have one or two Top-importance articles, that the project really intends to work on. If we tag more, "Top" importance becomes less meaningful. / edg 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't get it? Why are you telling me this and why aren't you reverting me? TheBlazikenMaster 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you think otherwise. As it is within the WikiProject, there isn't a strict right or wrong on this one. / edg 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: This edit

The unregistered user thinks I'm being silly. And I don't really know how to explain. I was wondering if you could get to that Talk Page and explain to the IP why this can't be added. TheBlazikenMaster 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I left him a bit of explanation here. / edg 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits=

FCUK you. That's French Connection (clothing). Sorry I'm being immature, but so what. Ban me please, ban me. 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

White Devil (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Excuse me.

User:White Devil has several final warnings on their user page. Edit history shows that each time one is received, editor cools it for at least a week, then resumes same vandalism. [9] [10]

This is the 2nd time in two weeks a block was denied because this editor hasn't been active since final warning issued. I'd say this vandal has found a method to evade block.

This account has few or no good edits, and may be vandalism only. I think a block is in order. / edg 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

re: User:White Devil

See #1 on WP:AIV: "The vandal is active now, has been sufficiently warned, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." Last Tuesday doesn't count as recent in my book. What you describe may be unusual circumstances, but there appear to be some good-faith edits in the history and I'd prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. If you feel strongly about a block, I'd suggest summarizing the situation on WP:ANI. I'm not opposed to the user being blocked, but I'm trying to play it by the book. Dppowell 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are not opposed to the user being blocked, may I simply repost this to WP:AIV so that another admin may review this? I think playing by the rules means I do not have permission to vandalize up to last warning every 2 weeks. The proposal that I should have to escalate User:White Devil to the Corps of Administrators because this vandal WP:GAMEs the system so trivially seems pointlessly bureaucratic. / edg 06:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Am reviewing with another admin now. Dppowell 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After discussing the matter with another admin, I've blocked him for 24 hours and left an appropriate block message on his talk page. Hopefully, that will send the desired message. Dppowell 06:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A Message By the El-Dude-O'

El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Stokely

Thank you for deleting that promotional link. When I removed it, the dude threw a temper tantrum. Josephgrossberg (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If calling somebody on a wholesale revert where you didn't so much as bother to read what the hell you were reverting constitutes a "temper tantrum" so be it. Have somebody revert some of your good-faith additions sometime and then accuse you of spamming and see how the hell you feel about it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't argue with a third party on my Talk page. / edg 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Settle down, IACB. Josephgrossberg (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


I notice you are linking to various articles. That site does not seem to have the sort of uniquely informative content that Wikipedia:External links recommends. If anything, PeachyWiki seems more like an image aggregator, at least for the articles you have linked. Also, since it appears to be at least partially a wiki, it's a self-published site, which per Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not excluded from external linking, but is certainly less valuable. A number of sites exist dedicated to the subject of porn stars, including wiki sites (NikkiWiki is one I know of), and maybe one of these will be established as a useful site the way IAFD is. But I'm fairly certain links to PeachyWiki at this time are spam. / edg 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think PeachyWiki is actually a useful resource ala IAFD. Several of its pages give lists of website appearances by porn models, information that only a few places have in any kind of centralized form. For example, this page on Charlie Laine:

There are very few resources out there right now that give the equivalent of filmographies for website appearances and I figured PeachyWiki would be one of them. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Filmographies are not copyrighted information, and can be found on IMDB (Charlie Laine on IMDb) as well as IAFD. As I stated above, PeachyWiki does not seem to have uniquely informative content. Please do not promote it on Wikipedia. / edg 05:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As for website appearances, there exist dozens of porn aggregators, many of whom give comparable reasons when attempting to spam Wikipedia. I'm asking you not to use Wikipedia to promote yet another one. / edg 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
And I really don't take kindly at all to accusations of "spamming". What single commercial website am I promoting by giving a page with multiple website appearances of an actress? PeachyWiki is a wiki, not a for-profit porn aggregator. As for "uniquely informative", I think there are several PeachyWiki pages that qualify as such. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PeachyWiki is (from what you're saying) a new site. If at some point PeachyWiki becomes a worthwhile site, maybe it can be considered. You might bring this up at WP:P*. / edg 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying about PeachyWiki in its present form not having much in the way of useful additional information, which is a different (and more relevant, in my opinion) statement from saying its commercial spam. Also, I actually was thinking of bringing up the topic of porn databases in general over on WP:P*, since the topic has also come up on Template_talk:Female_adult_bio#Adult_Web_Movie_Database. Some consensus on what kind of external links to include in porn-related articles and what the dividing line is between that and porn linkspam would be a good thing. I do think porn linkspam is a problem in Wikipedia and have reverted a lot of it myself, but I also think there are grey areas that need to be acknowledged. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Edgarde

How are you? sorry i was away, i got ambushed and shot in Angeles and spent time in hospital recovering, im still not well enough to return here but letting you know ill soon be back editing. ive noticed rodent and his clones have highjacked the articles. take care, susanSusanbryce (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Susan. I was wondering what happened. You live an interesting life. I guess I'm glad I don't.
Let me know when you want to resume fussing over the "Trafficking" article. Rather than restart the edit war, we should just head straight to Mediation.
No hurry on any of this. Get well first. / edg 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks Edgarde, well how exactly can we move forwrd then to mediation, also i want mediation on everything, all the articles i have started or posted and where Rodent has deleted what ive done and tried to force page ownership as well as his personal attacks against me. id like to subit the whole lot for mediation, how can we do this please?Susanbryce (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. First we need to list the articles of concern. Others can be added if they become an issue during the mediation. I'm aware of these:
What others? I think we can define two issues:
  1. Tendentious editing that appear to be WP:POVPUSH by RodentofDeath in the abovementioned articles
  2. History of personal attacks on your Talk page and on User:RodentofDeath, as well as in the articles (Talk page as well as article bodies) and other forums (such as in WP:ANI). / edg 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human trafficking in Angeles City. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. /RodentofDeath (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath attack on Susan Pineda

Rodent has made a slanderous attack on Susan pineda on the angeles discussion page.... susan pineda... one of the most corrupt government officials there is. also one of the most unreliable. if you recall she is the one making the outrageous and completely fictional claim that said 75% of prostitutes are children. she is also the one that tried extorting money from Richard Agnew

He claims she is involved in extortion and a corrupt goverment official. He cites no eveidence of this , it is clearly a serious breach of wikipedia and I believe should be referred to the administrators, I believe this is grounds for him to be banned from wikipedia.kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rodent disparaging someone he disagrees with? How unsurprising. If he does this in article space, it violates WP:BLP. Unsourced talk page ravings are just noise, so don't take them too seriously.
I'd like to restore the repeated statements you trimmed. They are there for a reason — see my reply in Talk:Human trafficking in Angeles City#Same_statement_repeated_twice. If you want to revert back to the previous version, that would be great. If you still have issues with this, please let me know. / edg 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Boomshanker lives

Good morning Edg - I just wanted to say thank you for your comments, sword n'all, in case you did not see my thank you on my page Boomshanker (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Boomshanker. Thanks for your message.
Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm as happy as anyone here to see a spammer blocked. I've dinged you twice on such offenses, and you've yet to make a single edit (aside from Talk page comments) that didn't mention Yes. It is our hope that you become a contributer who improves Wikipedia. But if you edit with the intent of finding ways to promote you product, our good faith in you is wasted.
All that said, I'm glad to help. Feel free to message me if you need any assistance. The smiley face icon in my sig leads to my Talk page. / edg 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I have filed a request for mediation on the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and you are invited to comment. Please see 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, too late. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RodentofDeath. (P.S. I'd already established that mediation was not likely to work, as established in the RFC). MER-C 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Thank you edgarde, I deleated thae add policy. You sure you don't want to be a member? --BrianGriffin-FG 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I have my hands full with other activities, including WP:FG, so I have to decline, but I appreciate the invitation. / edg 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokyo in pop culture (2nd nomination)

I closed this AfD as many other users have felt that you relisted the page for deletion too soon. If you want, you can take Tokyo in pop culture to deletion review instead; I would suggest taking this route instead of making a new AfD the same day the old one closes. Ten Pound Hammer(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 04:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, the result of the debate was not to merge, redirect, or delete the article. I removed the entire list; in doing so I challenged its relevance and its sourcing. DGG says that appropriate content will be added back. I'm skeptical this will happen but it doesn't hurt to wait and see. I think the redirect will have a much easier time sticking if you wait a couple weeks and there is still no more content. But DGG is an article builder, give him a chance and see what happens. Mangojuicetalk 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright-y then. Couldn't hurt. Thanks for your input on this. / edg 18:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Mangojuice and Edgarde, I certainly did intend to add back an appropriate part of the cultural material. I continue to disagree with its removal, but I admit that there is no point keeping such a list without an attempt to sot it out and add some sort of sourcing, at least primary. Too much of it is redlinks, and that is absolutely not a good idea in such a list. I intended as a first step to remove them and restore the others, but I realize in the light of the new day that I undertook more than i could deal with. If i did only that, you'd probably just bring it to AfD yet again, The material is almost entirely material I am unfamiliar with, most of it in a language I do not understand, and the criticism and sourcing will mostly be in that language. Someone else will have to do it. I will therefore not oppose the merge if nobody else is willing to do the work. I cannot learn Japanese in time to work with the material, or even familiarise myself in time with the parts of the material in English. (Though I am getting familiar with manga, by way of Wikipedia, & I am beginning to appreciate it. I do intend to learn at least one more language--maybe it will be Japanese after all.) The possible material seems so extensive that it would possibly do better to be added to Wikipedia in more than one article, when someone who knows the subject take the time to do it. I can envision such an article as "Manga set in Tokyo." I wouldn't be surprised if there were eventually a book on the subject--but it would most likely be in Japanese.

Mangojuice, I also agree with you the redirect is unnecessary, except to preserve the edit history for whoever does eventually write the article. If you think you can merge it, all the better.

I deeply and sincerely apologize for causing this unnecessary confusion--I certainly should at least have looked at it more fully before i acted . Edg, you did not act contrary to the DRV--there was more than one way to go forward, and your way was certainly acceptable. DGG (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus Griffin

Thanks for the heads up on the Thaddeus discussion. I wouls still maintain that he doesn't belong and I left my opinion on the discussion page. Thanks again for informing though. Saget53 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath

You may be interested in this, since you probably know most about his behaviour than I do. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Evidence. MER-C 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm watching with interest, and will try to contribute something before the week is up. Since my complaints about the mouse to Corps of Administrators have resulted in almost no action for 6 months now, I'm very interested in how you and John254 present this case to Arbitration.
And I am familiar with the arbitration procedure. / edg 14:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rodent notes

I don't think the Bryce attack version of User:RodentofDeath was actually live for very long. If I recall correctly, it was deleted after being reported (by me) on WP:ANI after only a few days. I think User:RodentofDeath went empty for at least a month afterward, possibly for 2 entire months, and may have been restored only for the recent RfC. / edg 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell. I've removed this from the evidence, but it wasn't specifically restored for the RFC. MER-C 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong then. / edg 14:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

I have listed Template:FGwiki on WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 13#Template:FGwiki. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed vote to merge

I changed my AfD vote to merge, based on my own findings Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters .

The image on your page Image:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg and your wikilawyering on AfDs reminds me of another user, who has thankfully since retired from the project, he candidly wrote his reason why, a portion which I will post here:

I had become involved in the “articles for deletion” venue, where I began becoming the target of immense hatred...All the while, I wondered why the hell I was doing it. I began to realize that, for me, the nasty truth was that much of it was a power trip. Oh, don’t get me wrong: my actions were taken because, in part, I did truly believe that the articles I nominated didn’t belong. But it was indeed a manifestation of a darker side of me — I enjoyed the fact that I could hurt someone — make them angry and mad and defensive. Because in my real life, that’s not something I do. I’m Mister Friendly with nearly everyone I meet, and I’m actually a really nice guy in about 99% of circumstances. But something about the process brought out the worst in me — aggression and adrenaline, all funneled through a keyboard without danger of being punched in the face. Resisting the temptation to say “fuck you, fanboy,” and instead turning it into a passive-aggressive “I truly believe that your article is not notable, and would remind you that Wikipedia has policies regarding not attacking your fellow editors and being civil to them” (ah, did I have a gift for the bull-lingo) … I got a dark thrill out of seeing people froth and rage and turn into drooling rabid ready-for-heart-attack messes because they weren’t getting the fight they wanted out of me. And another side of me looked at that dark thrill and went, “What the fuck are you doing, Mike?”

This Afd, and all the other Afds I have seen you brought could have been avoided. You readily admit that this AfD could have been avoided. You created a lot of wikidrama and wasted a lot of people's time.

Most nominators of AfDs never do this:

consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template.

This is much harder, this forces the user to actually build consensus, compromise and cooperate. I see none of these characteristics in your AfDs. I sincerely believe that many nominators, like Mike, deep down inside enjoy the power of destroying other people's work. They selectively use wikipolicy like a weapon to push through the AfD.

I backed down today and changed my vote--basically admitting I was wrong. In the years you have been on wikipedia, have you ever admitted you were wrong? Have you ever changed your vote in a Afd? I sincerely doubt it.

I hope they file the holes in AfD wikipolicy so editors like Mike don't go on vicious piety rampages anymore.

Please keep your response on this talk page, I will watch your page. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the energy you applied to this discussion. Just so you know, the term wikilawyering usually carries with it the assumption of bad faith.
As for Mr. Gas Mask (talk · contribs), I shared my reservations with him.[11] The reason for my threatening tone is I didn't expect he would participate in a WP:CONSENSUS-based discussion. He didn't reply – he never does. I'm increasingly confident he is a sock of another editor whose warning levels are approaching block.
My usual motivation in AfD nominations is to weed out articles that can never become good articles. The main reason I haven't nominated 6 of the 8 Family Guy character articles you listed is I'd rather there be a more general consensus among regular Family Guy editors on these matters, and there's really no hurry. But The Giant Chicken had to go.
And as the saying goes, I apologized for a mistake on Wikipedia once, but doing so turned out to be a mistake. I'd link this instance, but that would be rubbing it in. Do typos count? / edg 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rap and Hip Hop

Why did you undo my edits? I was only trying to maintain a strict NPOV environment. Anytime where the words rap or hip hop come up in an article we have ppl making unneeded commentary? wiki_is_unique (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Souljaman. Thanks for writing.
I agree that rap-related articles are subject to some biased and often abusive edits. About 2/3 of what gets added to the Gangsta rap is vandalism or spam, and gets removed immediately.
That said, Discussion page comments should not be deleted as long as they are relevant to editing the article. Editing for NPOV applies to the article, not the discussion page. Yes, Bennelloitt's comment included some stupe assumptions — in matters like this Wikipedians are supposed to assume good faith and stay civil, so deleting other editors' comments is in bad form. I undeleted that comment not because I agreed with it, but because the editor who removed it was not the editor who posted it.
If you're interested, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has information on what's considered acceptable on Discusion pages. / edg 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you edgarde. It just seems that as long as the word hip hop comes up that the article becomes targeted for some reason. I will stick to those guidelines though. Thanks have a nice day ;] wiki_is_unique (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have another question. Could I propose that the Soulja Boy and the Crank Dat articles be deleted because of people who just come to either vandalize,fill the article with their opinions and fill the talk page with ridiculious statements not related to the articles. I also believe that the article itself is becoming an attack article towards Soulja Boy and his song. wiki_is_unique (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Crank That (Soulja Boy) and Soulja Boy are well-sourced, well-organized and informative articles on reasonably notable subjects. Per WP:PROBLEM, these would not be deleted. I have requested semi-protection (blocking edits by anonymous editors) for Crank That (Soulja Boy), which seems to be a regular target of IP vandalism.
I'll keep an eye on Soulja Boy's article, but the disputable information in the Criticism section seems well-sourced. Perhaps citations can be found emphasizing Soulja Boy's strengths as an artist. WP:ALBUM#Professional_reviews has a decent list of review sites.
Surprised to see the single is still getting so much vandalism. / edg 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont just mean edits by anon editors i mean by registered users that try to turn it into an attack article. I'm just concerned that NPOV is not being practiced towards those articles.wiki_is_unique (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath evidence

Yes thankyou Edgarde, pls do that and shift it, sorry, I didnt know exactly where to post everything, thanks for your help here, kind regards.Susanbryce (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

re indent

[12] Sorry about that. I saw that "Agreed" went with the above, but thought the rest of your post stood on its own and that by being consecutive posts, all was clear enough. Your call, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your recent help and kindness I hereby award you This Barnstar! Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I must be getting less combative. Thank you much. I'll put this on the mantle. / edg 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Helpers at WP:FGdesk

Well edg, there is a deleated animatic scene in Vol. 3, if I'm corect, where it shows that he kills people for a living, I forget a word for it, but I don't think that he's killed people in the show. I have to check.\

On a slightly related note, as a holiday present, I'm making you a honorary member of the Helpers. Don't worry, you won't have to do anything, it like getting an honorary degree at a university, all you have is braging rights. You're not a fully-fleged member.

I myself would love to do the Reference Desk. You'll have to ask the other(s) if they'd like to do it. Contact me to let me know!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great. No entrance exam for you — I'm already confident that your knowledge and energy will benefit the WikiProject. Sign up sheet: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Family Guy/Reference desk#Evil monkeys. Read the rules (there's only 3) and add WP:FGdesk to you watchlist.
I hope other members of The Family Guy Helpers understand they are invited to join WT:FGdesk#Evil monkeys as well.
At this time WP:FG has almost no regular members running the backend stuff. Qst might also need some help at Portal:Family Guy, which is looking pretty good, and basicly the work of one editor. Qst is also our MVP for bringing several episode articles up to Good article status.
Didn't Brian run over someone in his Prius, repeatedly? Might have been a celeb, I'm not sure. / edg 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I forgot about that. It was in Brian in Love and it was, I know I spelled this wrong, Dean Countze. It diddn't say that he died, but he did run over him 2-4 times. I'll join!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(tents fingers) Excellent! The helpdesk question I was asking about is Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy/Reference desk#Brian_a_murderer.3F. Your time to shine dude! / edg 18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal-300.jpg)

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal-300.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal-300.jpg)

What is the difference between Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal-300.jpg and the image the replaced it? I don't understand why this swap was made. / edg 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No big difference, it's just that there were two album covers uploaded to Wikipedia. One was used in the Animals (album) article, and the other was used in the four song articles. I re-uploaded the one used in the four song articles to a smaller resolution version, and replaced the one image in the album article instead of replace the other images. Having two of the same non-free images is against policy, so I simply used the one I uploaded to replace the second one. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. For what it's worth, I resized most of the album cover images for Pink Floyd album articles a few months ago. Where album covers are used for album tracks, you can probably find an already-resized version in the album article. Incidentally, use of album cover images for articles on songs may be questionable fair use. / edg 22:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Misandry reversions

I think I gave decent reasons for my changes on Talk:Misandry. Can you take the time to explain your reasons for

  • repetitive etymology section,[13] which I think is unnecessary, and is contraindicated by WP:DICDEF
  • expanded criticism of Nathanson and Young, [14] following a 2-sentence mention that I think should indicate to most readers N&Y's leanings
  • need to change "discourse" to "commentary"

I'd like to see some kind of WP:CONSENSUS-based editing on Misandry, rather than just revert warring. If you don't have the time to engage in such discussion, perhaps you are fighting too many battles at once. / edg 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about some of the reverts. Ghostmonkey was following me around and reverting much of what I had done the past few days. I was moving to fast, and didn't notice you had done a much better job on the etymology, etc. I did end up reverting one of the reverts I made! hehe--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you do me a favor and self-revert (or just delete) the Etymology section? If I took it out now I would be seen as editing against WP:CONSENSUS. The rest is being discussed on Talk:Misandry. I think the recent batch of reversions may have given certain parties to disrupt and edit war.
Also I could use some help in citing sources saying the discussion of misandry as a subject is discourse occurring within conservatism. The identification of individual authors on whatever spectrum won't cut it for our purposes, especially since one or two of the authors cited are being quoted by conservatives but themselves really aren't. / edg 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for gonging Etymology. Much appreciated. / edg 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to conservative commentary

I'd like to delete the entire section Misandry#Response to conservative commentary, which currently comprises a long quote from a Nathanson and Young review. I'm happy to see them criticized—frankly, anyone watching the Misandry article for as long as I have would be happy to see them shot—but not in this article which only mentions them for 3 sentences. If a longer N&Y section grows in the Misandry article, a well-footnoted mention of how little traction they have gotten in academe would be worth including, but it is now out of proportion, especially while we are discussing it as a trend rather than the development of a set of idea (which would be a welcome change).

The Nathanson and Young article contains a decent reviews section.

I'm asking you because I think you are the sole editor who wants this section retained. While Jgda (talk · contribs) gave this paragraph a section heading, it seems more in the spirit of creating trouble than a serious suggestion. Is it okay if I delete this? / edg 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete if I'm the only editor who wants to keep it.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous versions of the Misandry article contained a proper section dedicated to N&Y, so this may be restored someday. / edg 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Falsetto

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falsetto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: This AfD notification is a great feature

The bot used to do orphaned fair use image tagging, so unless you uploaded an offending image you wouldn't have seen her. Thanks for complements, last time I got hordes of people telling me I was destroying their work so this is a nice surprise. :) BJTalk 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sticky Fingers merge

This merge would not be hard to perform, and at least half the Sticky Fingers song articles are weak stubs. However, I'm going to pass on this for now because there seems to be some resistance to this merge in WikiProject The Rolling Stones.

I would want a consensus among regular Rolling Stones editors, rather than simply imposing my preferred form on them. Also, I believe there may exist sufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability and provide sufficient sourced content for rich, independently notable articles for Rolling Stones songs from this period. Maybe someone will follow through with writing them, rather than just defending the stubs.

I'm not an inclusionist. I'm used to being called an evil deletionist in discussions for articles that plainly need to go, and furthermore it is my belief that a richly detailed album article beats nine song stubs. But if there is an active project that intends to develop these song articles, they should be given a chance. / edg 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sticky Fingers

I'm a member of the Stones wikiproject myself, and the only person I can see opposing it is Stan Weller. The tracks that were released as singles should not be merged, but for the rest you may as well be bold and do it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson

Care to add some evidence? / edg 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for opening the report. I've never edited on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets before — is it generally OK for me to just add stuff (links) to the evidence section when I'm not the reporter, or should I put it in the comments section? -- Ddxc (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It's generally okay, but sign your contributions to minimize confusion. / edg 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)