User talk:Hiding/Archive 2005

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you know Hiding?

See User talk:68.90.173.203 :)

Sorry, I'm confused? Have I done something wrong?--Hiding 07:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Comic Book Publisher stub

Hi.

When you were creating this, did you go through the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria? If you didn't, and/or if it continues to have such a small number of stubs (the recommended total for a stub isn't fixed, but it shouldn't be less than 30), it will almost certainly be deleted shortly. - SoM 14:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't realise there was a procedure for creating them. My bad. Best be deleted then, if that's the procedure. Then when I get around to writing up all the publishers, I can go through the correct procedure. Many apologies. Hiding 14:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up and the moving of the publishers off of the stub. I'm a bit green here and I guess it's showing.

Slightly :) - don't worry, a lot of people don't know about the stubs thing yet. The main point about it is to spread them out just-thinly enough, so that there's not going to be über-specific stubs with very few potential articles, but not so deep they each get overloaded. :) - SoM 00:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Graphic novelist

To follow WP category naming conventions, this should be "Graphic novelists", shouldn't it? ←Hob 07:53, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

WP:CMC#Copyright

The correspondence you've included is good (and probably necessary), but it's making an already long page longer. This would be an excellent occasion for a sub-page, don't you think? Perhaps one could serve for all copyright notices & such. -leigh (φθόγγος) 04:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wordy article titles

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Changing the title of A Contract With God to the full version of the book's title makes it more awkward to link to and harder to find, since hardly anyone refers to it by its full title. Likewise with Sabre. Tverbeek 11:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CfD

Y'know, while I'll support it since it's a very neat solution to the problem, you could have mentioned the Comic strip cartoonists thing @ WP:CMC before you say "After discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Categories it is felt the category needs renaming to Category:Comic strip cartoonists." @ CfD :) - SoM 16:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Warning

Why do you keep reverting the page? Do this again and you will be blocked from editing. -- X-43D 11:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blue Monday (comic)

Thank you for creating the Blue Monday (comic), and thank you for your vote in the Blue Monday requested page move survey. BlankVerse ∅ 15:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism Farc

I think that the FARC was a little premature. If you'll let me explain what's going on, I hope you'll agree. Perhaps the article needs to be renamed, but its contents are definitely featured article quality.

1. The POV tag and controversial tag were not about the contents of the article, but about the name. Some users believe that the article should be placed elsewhere (for example, at "right-libertarianism," with "libertarianism" being a disambiguation page) but they don't dispute the content. See this edit which led to the tags being added.
2. The "edit war" you were referring to is because an anonymous user kept on inserting a complaint about other editors into the article's text [1], not an edit war about content.
3. The RFC issues have been addressed in talk as far as I can tell. Both were about problem users that seem to have mostly given up and gone elsewhere.

I hope you'll consider removing your FARC in light of these facts. I think that the issue of the article name should be dealt with separately from the issue of its contents and whether or not it can be featured.

Thanks for your time, Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 13:49 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 14:36 (UTC)

British current events

Thanks for the heads up, I'll read over it. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Hiding,
Ouch, "all you've done". That was a bit harsh, I've even voted keep a time or three! ;) Don't you think that some amount of deletion is required, even if we disagree about this one? Besides, the beauty of the system is that if on over-zealous VfD is proposed, the article gets kept. Or even, as appears to be the case here, substantally improved due to its nomination.
Cheers,
brenneman^(t)(c)
03:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine's Superhuman Powers

Nightscream keeps reverting this entry to a version that is well.... It speaks for itself. Basically its like a long set of paragraphs were he talks to himself about what other readers think about the characters powers. Several other people as well as myself have been reverting it but he doesn't want to quit. Please see discussion. Hoping you could help us with a resolution.ScifiterX 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

This is copied from my (ScifiterX) talk page.

"Call it like I see it" does not constitute reasoning, or a cogent argument. I have responded to your accusations and other statements by explaining why they don't hold up, pointing out your manipulation and distortion of words and their meanings, your unnecessary insults, and so forth. What you refer to as your logic is actually paralogia, and merely asserting that it is sound, or that I have done what you accused me of doesn't make it true. I have refuted your statements by showing why they are false, and you have been unable or wiling to do the same, preferring to respond only with rhetoric. I have pointed out that you have not provided reasoing or examples to support your accusations, which is simply true. Your statement that I have been doing what you said I did is a prime example. I made a statement about how an article being long has nothing to do with whether it makes sense. This is a reasonable statement. Yet you reply with a non-sequitur about what I've done. What exactly is that? You never elaborate on these comments, which makes them nothing more than rhetorical. Rhetoric and Argument by Fiat is veridically invalid, and does not validate your position. Nightscream 7.12.05. 7.12.05. 1:46am EST.

Wow, looks like somebody was busy with there dictionary tonight. I read this to my friends and they were rolling on the floor laughing. "Your logic is actually paralogia." "Rhetoric and Argument by Fiat is veridically invalid." How can I read that with a straight face? I mean really, I have never insulted the guy. But, he is being a nuisance and now he leaves me these little gems on my talk page. I see a new one just about every time I log in. Is he doing this because he craves attention or something? ScifiterX 07:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I explained that I wasn't attacking Nightscream. I just refuted some statements that he made. I do not appreciate being threatened for advocating my own opinion and I strongly suggest you look a little closer at the dialogue between myself and Nightscream. I have been reasonably civil through this matter and he has not. As far as my observation about what he was saying, he was being rude and accusing me of doing things and saying things I had not done. You have to read what he is saying very closely sometimes to see that he is actually being quite insulting. If anyone was being attacked it was me. Lets try not to disparage people too much for standing up for themselves. ScifiterX 07:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

However, if (by your comment you left on my talk page) you were just trying to be cool and look out for me, by making sure I didn't alienate myself, I appreciate it.ScifiterX 07:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I do want to say that I appreciate your attempt to objectively evaluate the matter and the time you have spent attempting solve this problem. ScifiterX 08:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tv characters in wheelchairs

Thanks very much for your reply to my query at WP:RD. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 17:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

British and Irish current events

I do plan on helping to keep it updated wherever I can help out. -- Joolz 21:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

More on British and Irish current events

I note you voted keep in the above page's VfD, and I was wondering if you'd consider helping to keep it updated. Thanks for your time, Hiding 21:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I probably won't be able to do much work on that page, since I actually live in Australia and I'm really only familiar with events over there that have an international aspect. Good luck with it though, it looks much better already! --bainer (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories

Sorry to hear you are injured.

Thanks, just a bit bruised and scratched, asphault isn't the nicest fluffy pillow its laid out to be :) ∞Who?¿?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, which I found whilst cleaning out inactive wikiprojects, and I was surprised you weren't a member since I've seen you do a lot of work on categories, so I figured I'd mention it.

Wow, I probably would have been a member sooner, if I had known about it, I'm glad you did mention it. I'll be back on in a day or two, and I see there is a long list of categories to be "hammered into shape". Thanks for taking the time to mention it. ∞Who?¿? 08:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You just declared Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods inactive. I'm the only participant in this project. Obviously this topic doesn't arouse anyone else's interest probably due to its rather difficult and specialized content. However, I've written quite a lot of articles about gastropods and their physiology and changes are being made regularly. But at the moment I'm writing mostly botanical articles. I've made an appeal for participation in a scientific journal. There aren't too many specialists in this field, but I got two answers anyway. But as soon as they heard that all their writings would come under GFDL, they were no longer interested. I'll probably write a few more articles about gastropods, but I'm still hoping for reinforcement. But the project is certainly not inactive. JoJan 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine (comics)

I'm very sorry — that was a bad mistake on my part. I was adding a request for unprotection to the top of the list and evidently edited your title too. I've just this second removed my mistake. I hope I haven't caused too much carnage. Apologies again. -Splash 12:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hiding, I realise you meant well, but look at the definition at Wikipedia:Edit war. Me, User:T-1000, User:ScifiterX, User:Undertones, User:Britney Spears, User:Maestro25, (and a couple of anons, who may or may not be the same and/or one or more of the above) have all reverted Nightscream's version(s), while no-one is supporting Nightscream. This isn't me vs. him, or SX vs. him, and there's no need to "build a consensus" as you said on RFC, there is a consensus, apart from one particuarly vocal user who's reverted to his version about once a day (on average) for the past couple of months. And, like I said on WP:CMC and the Wolv talk page, if he succeeds in altering the consensus by sheer weight of reverts, it sets a horrible precedent, and I don't see how that can be good for the community as a whole.

I'm requesting that you please withdraw your RFC, or at least reword it to make it sound less pejorative against everyone but NS. - SoM 01:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. And as far as you slipping and calling Nightscream whatever it is that you called him, they guy deliberately antagonizes people in order to get them to slip like that so its understandable. Anybody who reads his dialogue will understand that. You have nothing to apologize for or be afraid of. ScifiterX 02:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Music

Hi there! I was reading over some votes in the CSD proposal, and if you don't mind, I had a question about yours. You said you opposed 3-C (about unremarkable bands) because you prefer 3-A. Now I can interpret this in two ways. One is that you like 3-A but not 3-C, hence you support the former and oppose the latter. The other is that you like them both but prefer 3-A, which would imply you support 3-C if and only if 3-A fails. Could you please enlighten me which you meant? Thanks. Radiant_>|< 13:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

RFC on Nightscream

Hello! From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nightscream, I do not quite understand what the problem is or what you propose to do about it. If this is a serious request for comment, might I suggest that you start anew from the template, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_user because that should help explaining? Radiant_>|< 10:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• RFC on articles seem to work fine but RFCs on people do not generally accomplish anything. Still, i guess it wouldn't hurt. I'll look over Nightscream's contribs log for a bit; if he's breaking the 3RR or anything feel free to report him. Radiant_>|< 12:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that is precisely what RFCs are for, except that they generally do not work. That is unfortunate, and if you have suggestions your view would be welcome on the RFC talk page, or on one of the four different mediation processes that we currently have. In this particular case, I'd suggest politely (and if necessary repeatedly) telling Nightscream to not go against consensus (as you've done, but maybe try citing policy such as WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Consensus at him). He's now blocked for a day; if that doesn't help, mention it once more to the admin who blocked him this time. Radiant_>|< 13:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's overview

Of course I read it. I also reviewed the history of the actual edits. Nightscream has been reverted since the moment he started posting the additional detail. I find the detail interesting. You should preserve as much as possible, even if that means splitting it off into its own article. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Hiding. I don't know where the person above me is coming from on this. What Nightscream was adding was non NPOV opinion and his personal conjecture on a fictional character, not detail of any sort of objectively evaluated nature. But that's just me. Obviously someone agrees or he would not have been blocked. Anything I can do to help with the process just let me know. ScifiterX 07:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nightscream RFC

I'm starting to come around to your opinion on this, having looked through the history rather than rely on what I'd been told. The problem is, I don't know where to start or how to go about it, and I'm going on holiday on Friday. Can you keep an eye on the page? Hiding talk 20:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

As much as I can. -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved back?

Not that I mind per se, but why did you move the Categorization/By country page? There are several other issues regarding category titling (e.g. abbreviations, by gender, by race) that would eventually be addressed on other pages, hence the idea to keep them separately. Radiant_>|< 13:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• That is a good point, and one of the things that we may want to decide by this mechanism is whether to categorize by country (or nation, continent, state, etc). Radiant_>|< 13:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Country cat page name thing

Hi Hiding. I'm not really concerned about the title of the page on which the discussion takes place. Radiant! had already made the page I redireted to, and I thought that Wikipedia:Category titles was too broad a name; if interpreted literally, we'll try to have a bunch of discussions all at once and will end going nowhere. Still, for the time being, I guess there's no problem (and it wasn't an attempt to prejudge the issue). -Splash 14:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see. When I created that page, I was unaware that Maurreen had done the same scant hours earlier. Radiant_>|< 14:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, don't worrym, Hiding, I wasn't really looking for an apology; I was just explaining why I'd done what I did (since it was a pretty sweeping change). -Splash 15:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Relation

Are you related to Rick? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Well done on cleaning out the old Wikiprojects! That was long overdue. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 12:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I second your comendation on doing this! Yay! Good job! I liked that you listed the inactive ones on the VP, too. JesseW 06:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobile construction

I have not put any time into this project for many months, but I don't see any reason to delete it. Who knows--it may be revived by one or two interested users someday. -- Wapcaplet 16:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Question on Naming Conventions for Comic Characters.

I was looking to write some of the bios for the Flash's rogues, however I have a problem that I'm not toally clear on. (I'ma wiki-newbie, so please correct me if I'm wrong)

Three of the primary rogues (Captain Boomerang, Mirror Master, and The Trickster have had 2 incarnations. I'm wondering if I should create new pages for the newer incarnations, or if I should use one page and write about both characters before. I suspect that would be the case for Boomerang and The Trickster, as they are newer and less has been written with them. The first Mirror Master was a Silver Age Flash villain and killed during Crisis. The second one has been primarily a Modern Age Flash villain. Should I create "Mirror Master(Silver Age)" and "Mirror Master(Modern Age)" as the pages? (If that happens, Mirror Master should become a disamb. page...)

Also, would it be a good or bad idea to create a Flash Villain subcategory? The rogue's gallery entry mentions the Flash, however he's the only hero of the four without a subcategory.

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out how to sort through all of this stuff. Any help you could give me would be much appreciated.Toffile

Thank you. I'm already a member of the project, member #101. (I think I caused you to spinoff the list to another page.) I'll keep those in mind. None of the Flash villains are the same person who was merely given a reboot after the Crisis. They're all separate people. (Captain Boomerang II is the son of Captain Boomerang I, who was killed during Identity Crisis. The first Trickster is still around and still plays an influential part. Mirror Master I is dead, and the death is still in-continuity.)

I'll go explain my position more on the Projecttalk page in a second.Toffile 18:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature

I did delete it, however, I personally thought the redirect made sence, so I did that myself. VfD just says what to do to the article in the short term; and other things can happen to it. Someone looking for a wikiproject on books and thinking we use high-faultin' terms will not find a dead page but instead a page thay can contribute to.

Is redirecting it all that bad? humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 22:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The contradiction is between "America" (spelled out) and "UK" (abbreviated). For consistency, it would make more sense to make it "America / Great Britain" or "USA / UK". Radiant_>|< 09:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• No, that wasn't the intent. It's just that the US and UK come up rather often, and Ireland and Russia not so. I've changed it to "United Kingdom" now, hope that helps. Radiant_>|< 09:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because I accidentally typed 'not' twice. Doh. Fixed now, thanks. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

American football

I think "American football" is not really relevant to the discussion. "American football" is the commonly known name of a game, just like "American Beauty" is the commonly known name of a rose. I could imagine "American football in the UK" as being a valid name. The purpose of the discussion is to come up with guidelines for the common cases, when a broad topic is being discussed in many countries. British football is not the same topic as American football. They are different sports. -- Samuel Wantman 10:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Likewise French films compared to French language films. How about American revolution or Language of the United States? Hiding talk 10:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I never know what people mean by "French films", sometimes the language, sometimes the country. "Films of France" is very clear. "American revolution" is one of the exceptions because that is the name of a specific event and not about a topic "Revolutions in the US", like "The Falkland war" versus "Wars in the Falkland Islands". I don't know what you mean by "Language of the United States". I can imagine "Languages spoken in the US", whereas, "American languages" doesn't seem clear. -- Samuel Wantman 10:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Emergency with the Michael Jackson Page

Help! I was trying to edit down the Michael Jackson page, because the disclaimer at the top said that at 46K, it was too long. In the edit window, only the portion up to the section on Jackson's nosejobs was shown, so I just assumed that my changes would only affect everything up until then, and that I'd have to click on the "edit" links for the sections following that, but when I finally hit "save page," to my horror, I saw that EVERYTHING after that was gone! The earlier version is visible on the History page for that article, of course, but I don't know how to restore it. Help! Nightscream 8.8.05. 11:42pm EST

Wikipedia:Category titles

I believe this kind of discussion is useful, but the present one has raised a number of questions regarding procedure, and I was rather dismayed to hear that there had been a similar discussion half a year ago that none of us had been aware of. As such, it may be useful to have a centralized page (like RFC) for these things. I've set up a rough draft at Wikipedia:Standards, and would like your opinion on it. Its current wording could probably use some heavy revision (feel free to do so).

At the very least, there should be a central place for archiving and searching for these debates (the Manual of style comes to mind, but it is very unclear which parts of it have actual support and which parts were just arbitrarily put together). I personally believe that having standards is rather pointless if they're not enforceable, but that is especially an issue I'd like more opinions on. Radiant_>|< 08:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Plato naming scheme

Hello again, Hiding. Hope you are keeping well!

Just wanted to once again request your comments on Category talk:Dialogues of Plato, as I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts (and hopefully support) for some final work that needs to be done to complete a full standardization of the article names of the dialogues. There are still three articles that have the (Plato) ending but cannot be changed manually and thus require a formal request. This is the last major task that remains at the moment.

Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 01:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi there! Out of curiosity, is there any relation between you and Rick Block? Or an inside joke? Or is it just coincidence? Radiant_>|< 12:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

removing references

thanks, I didn't know that. cheers

WP:CENT

Please visit. It reflects much of our recent discussion, and an established process that was helpful in alleviating VFD. Radiant_>|< 13:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

American

Wouldn't it be easier to hold the "American/United states" poll on a new page and use it to set a Naming Convention? Radiant_>|< 11:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics

I want to thank you for bringing the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comic books) to my attention. I normally do not use my watchlist, and I normally don't watch articles over the long-term, even pages I created, so it's nice to have someone have the decency to drop a note when major changes are going on at something I started. —Lowellian (reply) 20:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

American Comic Books

Got your message; I'd be glad to compile a list of refs for the abovementioned page. --Tenebrae 14 Sept 2005 1:01PM ET

• Got a bunch of References in -- books w/ISBNs -- and one External Link. More when time. Tenebrae 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Infobox standardisation

Thanks for letting me know. When my net time is less limited, I'll probably contribute there. - SoM 18:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Category titles

Okay, I've read over it and made another proposal. Please comment. Radiant_>|< 13:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

archiving

Hi - I noticed you've been doing some archiving of the VP pages. THANKS. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Fair use tags

• Okay, I'm having a bash now. I just want to clarify where you said:

(bearing in mind that you shouldn't just retag without checking that it's not excessively high-res and that it sources both the comic the panel(s) come from and the place the scan came from, even if the uploader scanned it themself aren't all okay).

• What sort of thing I should be looking out for. What bit might not be okay? Hiding talk 13:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically, the image needs a source for the image (e.g. Wolverine #67, with page'n'panel nos ideal but not strictly needed) and a source for the scan itself; if they mention they scanned it themself, that's fine. If it's a "raw" scan - that is, unaltered from the original comic - from another site, or it's a promotional image from an interview or solicit, that's fine as long as they give a link. If it's an edited scan from another site, that's possibly/probably NOT fine, and if they don't give a source for the scan at all, that's certainly not fine. In the latter two cases don't retag, and ask about it on the user talk page of the uploader, and if they don't respond, list it on WP:CMC in a new heading below the OHOTMU list in the same sort of format, and it'll have to be replaced and/or deleted.

And we've talked about the hi/lo-res issue already. - SoM 14:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I've asked User talk:DrBat about Image:2765 400x600.jpg.

You'd be as well looking through Special:Contributions/DrBat - especially his older uploads - right now. I'd planned to, but I've ticked him off over this sort of stuff in the past, and you might be more "neutral" in his eyes. (although the specific image you mention is probably from the DC solicitations for whatever month that issue was due - the solicits are usually where logoless covers come from, although he should still say which site he got it from as a general principle) - SoM 15:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also, how do I know what resolution the image is? Is that the file size? Hiding talk 15:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's how big the scan is vs. the original. I forget the exact numbers off the top of my head, but a whole comic page scanned at 72dpi will look about the "right" size compared to the printed comic on-screen (meaning 500±100px wide - as I say, I forget the specifics), but you'd need about 300dpi to get a printed version looking good at the right size. The smaller the excerpt, the more lenient we can be, but if it goes over 150dpi (about double-size on-screen, half-size when printed), even a very small panel would probably be too high-res. - SoM 15:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And the thought just came to me - we should really be demanding some sort of "The characters/etc depicted are trademarked and copyrighted by DC/Marvel Comics" notice, shouldn't we? I've been making a point of doing so on my uploads (e.g. Image:X-Factor (2005) 1.jpg), but it'd be a good idea in general to be safe - SoM 15:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

category titles

Hi - Re removing your previous edit. Acceptable? Hell yes. I was struggling with how to word a message to you about it. BTW - I saw your proposal and completely agree (and it seems like the obviously most practical outcome). I've been thinking another approach might be - each "by country" supercategory (member of category:categories by country) has a rule for its members, so the one overriding rule is each "by country" category is internally consistent. This rule, combined with your list of general rules (does this make them guidelines?) seems sufficiently actionable to me. I think it avoids the category-by-category issues at CFD (which I think is Radiant's goal). I haven't quite figured out Splash - but I think his goal is all "nationality x" categories must be renamed. I'm not sure anyone else is really still paying attention. Do you think it might be worth bringing up "rule per supercategory" (after folks get a chance to respond to my yes/no poll)? Why is this so frickin difficult? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

related?

The Block side of my family comes from Germany (my great grandfather emigrated to the US via Canada in the late 1800's to avoid a Prussian draft), so I doubt we're related unless you also trace back to Germany. Of course, since everyone has two parents if you go back enough generations there pretty much has to be some intersection somewhere. I suspect in our case it's at least 6 generations, which I suppose most people would consider "unrelated" :). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image:4396y756753.jpg

I believe it is official artwork. I will see if I can find a tag.--Zxcvbnm 21:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

John Loder

Thanks for the John Loder entry. I heard from Gee vaucher that he had died. Appreciated. quercus robur 00:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming

Sure, advertise ahead, as long as it stays a discussion rather than a vote. I'd agree that it hasn't had enough reactions yet. Radiant_>|< 13:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

WP:CENT

Hi, Hiding. Can we have a three-way conversation at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion about whether the tag should be "Proposed" or "Guideline"? Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

American?

I am nothing of the sort. Why else would I be speaking Dutch fluently? :) Radiant_>|< 10:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not offended and certainly don't need an apology (hence the smiley above). I simply find it funny that people frequently consider me a native English speaker and writer. Radiant_>|< 10:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What?

What the flip? We made several consensual decisions on the talk page, and you object to a summary (which I haven't even published anywhere yet) on the grounds that Rick should publicize it himself? Why are you so intent recently on throwing away everything we've discussed so far? I'm not going to revert war over this but I seriously don't get it. Radiant_>|< 11:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Never mind, thanks. I hope I listed only the points that are consensual, and would welcome further debate. Radiant_>|< 12:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I humbly apologize for the remarks I made to you yesterday. I've had some real-life matters bugging me but that's no excuse for snapping at people. Yours, Radiant_>|<

Wikipedia:Category titles

Hello. I feel obliged to drop you a line and state I found your addition of a poll on the issue somewhat disrespectful of the discussion we had already had and our rejection of polling. I appreciate you may not have followed the whole of the discussion, but I personally believe it would be better then to discuss such ideas first before enacting them out of common courtesy. Please be assured I intend no disrespect for your opinion, only the manner in which it was presented. Hiding talk 08:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, when I read the previous discussion (which is very long and complex), I noticed Rick's quick poll, and had in mind our previous polling, and I guess I missed the comments about "no more polls". Most of the content currently on the project page is there because a previous poll supports it, and I felt wary about just declaring things that weren't really decided by prevailing opinion. I'm not sure why polls are inappropriate in these cases; really, I just wanted to confirm whether each of a list of things should be in column A or column B. If you'd prefer to re-format what I put on the talk page as a "how does this proposal make you feel?" or whatever as opposed to a "count yourself in support of this or an alternative" poll, that's fine with me. I was just hoping to avoid a situation where people give unclear comments which don't really lead to an implementable conclusion, and the whole question just drags on even longer. -- Beland 14:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hiding, don't worry. I was feeling somewhat irritable that day and probably shouldn't have been editing talk pages anyway. At least now we seem to be verging on having something put together that we can present more publicly. -Splash 15:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming

OK. Thanks for your note. Maurreen (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Shooting Fish

Hiding, thank you for your message. I'll change my vote now - I hope you saw that the article consisted of complete nonsense when I added my vote for deletion. Cheers, High^(Hopes) 17:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Instructions for CP

You've recently posted on VP about a backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Can you point me to a page which tells me how to deal with such listings? I would assume it's a case of checking whether it's a copyvio, check the temp too. Delete the copyvio and move a potential viable temp to the main article. Is there anything else I should remember? -Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comics Wikiportal

• So browsing Category:Wikiportals to see how it's done, I saw User:SoM/Comicswikiportal. Alright to make that the base and then move it when done? All the subpages just get fleshed out I guess?

Sure, if you want (although I didn't get very far. I started, then I noticed that whoever opened it is considered the "owner" and thus obliged to keep it going/up to date. And I tend to let these things slip.) - SoM 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ah. I've walked into this one alright then :)

Something like that :p

You might be better off starting with a clean page tho, rather than bothering trying to resurrect my abortive attempt - SoM 19:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Portal vs. Wikiportal

1. Eh? What's going on with the categories there? Why is it in Category:Portals (16 pages + 3 subcats) rather than Category:Wikiportals (104 + 8)
2. I can see the point of reformatting the WP:CMC main page, and even like the columns in a way, but Template:Wikiproject's got a "How-a-WP-should look" template. And you missed at least one "cricket" :)
3. Lilac? Is that compulsory, or did you choose it?

SoM 22:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, I haven't looked too much at the cats yet. Best bet is to dual cat it then.

I did dual-tag for the nonce, although they should probably go to CFD for one to be merged into the other (probably portals into wikiportals, as the smaller). I've replied on the rest @ WPT:CMC - SoM 18:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hmmm

• Seems like we disagree on the layout drastically. I'm not too keen on the top section going right across the page to be honest, I find it uninviting,

Whereas, I think that not having a full-width top section makes things cluttered and lessens the focus on the subject of the portal :/ - SoM

• and I like the addition of the text on the featured picture, it gives a little more context and increases click through if you ask me.

Maybe, but fundamentally, it takes away from the picture itself - a "Featured Picture" should focus on the picture, not on an article which uses it - SoM 18:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how we resolve this to be honest.

Me neither. Bring some other people into it and see what they think? The across-the-top thing seems to be far more common tho. - SoM 20:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man

• Hah, I've never bought an issue of Spiderman in my life.

Spider-Man. You hit a pet hate of mine with that one, hence my aggrieved reaction :)

• As to the commas, well, it takes a long time to set this stuff up to your satisfaction. Bet you wish you'd done it yourself now, eh? :)

Not as such, since you were still the one to do the donkey-work either way :p

Come on tho - you can't really have thought it looked alright that way?

• Just wish the servers weren't so damn slow. That blanking is from an edit about half an hour ago that hasn't been purged. I have half a mind to ditch the transcluding. Hiding

Yeah, that's been getting to me today as well. Ditching the transclusion completely isn't really an option though, since you'd end up with a huge page and no sections. Maybe by playing around with styles a bit, the box-header and -footer transclusion could be dumped in favour of classes (which would also let you preview colour changes...)

There is a problem though in that a couple of bits have double- and even treble-transclusion, but that's mostly because they're things which are used on other pages too, and thus would either go ahead or behind if you replaced them. - SoM 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Things you can do

• That's a neat trick at Portal:Comics/Things you can do, I have to say I thought that was frowned upon which was why I didn't try it, but I can't say I mind. It makes it easier to keep it updated, that's for sure.

Multi-transclusion is frowned upon a bit - but considering the sheer amount of transclusion already going on in the portal and the absolute certainty that the two lists would get out-of-sync very quickly otherwise (and the fact that it's a meta-template to start with), I felt it was worth doing here. - SoM 22:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Lilac

• Good golly, you really don't like it do you? More portals use t than don't, so what have you got against it?

Not so much as the near-white on the box-body backgrounds, more the pastel shade used as a box-header background, and there because it's so insufferably bland for a header - only grey and beige are worse for the purpose (and white-on-pastel? Think of people's eyesight...)

And I'd dispute the "more use it than not", and will ask for evidence to back it up shortly :)

• The only reason I'm avoiding white as a background is that putting a thumb on an image, as in the Eisner one, creates some siully blue shadow on it.

Eh?

• Also, do you know how to solve the text disappearing under the image in the top box?

Nope. I was trying to fix that earlier and couldn't. A lot of other portals seem to have the same problem - SoM 22:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: That works

• Yep, I'm happy. You? Well done on the fix in the intro.

Yeah, reasonably so (never completely :)). And ta

• The blue shadow appeared around an image when the thumb tag was applied, or at least it did my end.

Oh that? That's deliberate and built-in. If you want rid of it, you can play about with your personal CSS.

• Also, I don't think we should update the featured articles and pictures too often, what, once a week?

Pretty much. I just wanted an actual FA in there for the first week :)

Oh, and a couple of points I missed yesterday in all the back-and-forth, since you didn't header them:

• As to updating it, how do you reckon we should choose the content for it? Nominate and vote, like on collaboration candidates?

I'm wondering if we'd get enough votes for that to be worth it. We could try I suppose *shrugs*

• And on another topic, shall we have a bash at the to do list at WP:CMC? I think for starters it shouldn't be on it's talk page, so I'll sort that out. Most of it is pretty near done, I reckon, how about you?

I see you've done it now. Yeah, pretty much.

Of course, from what's left:

(1) isn't getting any attention, and hasn't for a while

(2) hasn't had any attention

(3) as phrased, it's unachievable for the simple reason that there'll always be new stubs generated,

(4.1) - how many publishers are there? Enough to really warrant a specialised infobox, rather than finding some business Wikiproject's and "borrowing" it?

(4.2) There was a crack at this, but while it was a poor attempt, it did make me wonder how useful it would be, since most articles are character/team orienated, rather than series

(4.3) There's a bias towards superheroes (and I freely admit I'm biased that way), so that's down the list

(4.4) I know there are very few articles on CB artifacts, and I'm not sure how useful it would be to make more articles. Best to keep them with the relevant characters for the most part.

(5) Mentioned already recently - might be some progress there

(6) Is... blank. Or near enough.

That's the downside, I suppose, to getting most of them done. It means the remainder aren't high on anyone's list, since they've been, gone and ignored for quite some time. - SoM 23:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: To-Do

(1) isn't getting any attention, and hasn't for a while

• I don't mind having a quick bash at this, but it's simply just listing all the topics somehow isn't it? I don't understand Leigh's point or purpose here.

Me neither, TBH. Maybe he meant some sort of linking-infobox for the pages listed to be put on them (similar to the History of the English penny box?) - although they're getting frowned upon a bit in these days of Categories. - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(2) hasn't had any attention

• I was actually going to tackle this next. The problem I have with it is which Superhero characters to list. My thinking was the main ones, Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Wonder Woman, X-Men.

If the idea is to replace the "Related articles" or "See also" sections (which there isn't on many pages, actually), that'd be a bad idea, I think, since you'd be replacing article-specific links with non-specific ones. - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(3) as phrased, it's unachievable for the simple reason that there'll always be new stubs generated

• Agreed. Shall we remove it or debate its removal?

I don't know about that - a weakening of the phrasing is needed, and direct mention of the subcats might be an idea, but not outright removal. - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(4.1) - how many publishers are there? Enough to really warrant a specialised infobox, rather than finding some business Wikiproject's and "borrowing" it?

• Sounds good. Template:Infobox Company? I would suggest removing the products and industry, but then again, those would be useful to readers not familiar with the publisher in any shape or form, wouldn't it?

Yeah. Other than a possible case for listing their more prominent characters (which could be done as an adjunct box), they're fundamentally businesses and should be treated as such. - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(4.2) There was a crack at this, but while it was a poor attempt, it did make me wonder how useful it would be, since most articles are character/team orienated, rather than series

• Should we start building pages for the comic book series as has been suggested at [I presume you meant to add WPT:CMC here :)]

Maybe - I'm of two minds on this after me and another guy had a recent edit war at New Avengers with a guy who refuses to admit that the team is still just the "Avengers". I've got a sinking feeling that an attempt at comic-series articles might turn into pseudo-character/team entries anyway. - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(4.3) There's a bias towards superheroes (and I freely admit I'm biased that way), so that's down the list

• No problem. Although I've softened my stance on infoboxes, I'm not going to take a lead on making them or using them. I see that as your department, if you will. :)

Heh - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(4.4) I know there are very few articles on CB artifacts, and I'm not sure how useful it would be to make more articles. Best to keep them with the relevant characters for the most part.

• Again, I agree, and suggest removing it, or debating the removal.

Agreed - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(5) Mentioned already recently - might be some progress there.

• I've been bold again. ;) User:Hiding/Collaboration

I'll take a look - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(6) Is... blank. Or near enough.

• Yeah, not sure what the goal is with that one. Not much comics content, as opposed to webcomics stuff, gets deleted on AFD. I think the idea is to shift the cruftier stuff over there, but don't look at me to set that one up. ;)

There should be something in one of the WPT:CMC archives about it, I'll look later. - SoM 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Logs are all at Special:Log, although you can't watchlist them unfortunately. Right, thanks, I think I noticed a message on VP about it being moved, but I hadn't added that to my watchlist. I will do now, though I'm slightly confused as to what's supposed to happen next. -Splash 20:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

CP

The first link you gave was for reporting violations which I already knew, but the second was exactly what I was after. Thanks! - Mgm|^(talk) 17:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)

I was just wondering what was supposed to be happening next with that and if there was anything I could do? Hiding talk 14:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm attempting to follow Wikipedia:How to create policy. There really hasn't been any discussion since officially inviting feedback from the community at large, so I guess the next step is to change from an invitation for comments to a poll. It's been a week, so I guess it's time. We should be careful to word the poll so that it keeps focused. Another alternative seems to be to declare success and simply label the page as official and see if anyone objects. Given the near complete lack of comments, this might be a reasonable approach in this case. What do you think? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: User_talk:Ezeu#Category:Musicians_of_DR_Congo

I've reverted the changes I made to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia:Categorization of people. I will revert Category:Musicians of DR Congo back to Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of Congo if there are any objections to the change. --Ezeu 21:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I just placed this category on Cfd here, to undo these changes. ∞Who?¿? 19:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight

Thank you for your invitation. I will try and see if I can find something to help with. Havok (T/C) 19:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Lady Frieda Harris

Hey Hiding. At WP:CP you said you've sent a followup email to confirm. I'm trying to squeeze CP down to 'size' a bit, so I'm going to move that listing to the "Poster claims permission" section of the page. Just letting you know so that you can find it and update the entry when you do/not hear back. If you don't hear back, (technically within 7 days, so by the 29th) give me a prod and I'll delete it. If you do hear back, just remove the entry at CP. Meantime, I'll leave the copyvio notice off. Thanks. -Splash^talk 02:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have said: could you forward that email to permissions at wikimeda dot org? They keep them Somewhere. I'll add a note to the talk page. -Splash^talk 13:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

is it policy or not

Hi - user:CalJW and I seem to be somewhat at odds regarding the use of speedy category renaming to enforce the conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Do you suppose you could comment either at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Speedy category renaming]

Oh, good point. I would think that they can be revived. For some reason my sig doesn't appear much over there; perhaps I had enough Category stuff already at the time! Reading the page, at least a couple of them (your US/UK expansion one and the "notable things") one look pretty much fully backed. I wonder if, given the time delay, they should be reaffirmed? In fact, your acronym expansion one is basically in effect on CfD as a strong guideline now, so it could easily be made a speedy. How was it intended that these discussions would be advertised? -Splash^talk 20:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:charismatic religious leaders

You wrote that this category is not neutral. To be honest, I do not understand how you can write something that is so completely untrue. This category may be somewhat vague though I used it only for clear cut examples, but to say that it is not neutral sounds crazy to me. See charismatic authority. Andries 19:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Civility

Hiding, I feel that your posts are starting to get less and less civil and that you're frankly getting very territorial about the US and UK comics articles. You must respect the fact that I'm allowed to have an opinion and interpretation of terminology that might not be the same as yours. (At least not the way you've presented it so far.) You're not justified in constantly bringing up off-topic comments on previous, unrelated discussions and what you feel is wrong about my behavior and competence. If you defend article contents (or titles) when they are criticized, then you bear the burden of proof, not the person criticizing it. Article content does not justify itself. Especially not when I've tried to bring up sources myself. If you just stick to factual discussion instead of constantly complaining that I disagree too much, that I bring up the "wrong" sources and insisting that you're backed up by the comics project(s) in most of your opinions, the chance that we might actually reach some sort of consensus will drastically increase. If you're secure in that your intepretations are right, you should try to show some good grace and patience instead of firing off unfinished posts at me all the time.

I urge you to take this complaint at face value, and not just as another post to debate over.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully request you to take this post at face value. I do respect your opinion. I merely remain unconvinced that it is right. Hiding talk 18:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't believe you are and I think you're being uncivil about it, too. Since you don't seem to either acknowledge or take my complaints about your behavior seriously, I'm going to throw up my hands and stop trying to participate in comics articles that you're involved with. Your resolve to uphold your own POV is simply too strong to allow any proper attempt at consensual discussion.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I would, however, respectfully point out that I find your language in the above post to be somewhat damning, and ask you to examine your own conscience and ponder upon your own role in any misunderstandings. I too believe it is unfortunate we could not come to agreement, but I am afraid I can not agree that I am the only party at fault here. I have found your behaviour somewhat disturbing, especially your biased summation of our disagreement to other people. I would hope you have noted that whenever I have tried to involve other people in our dispute I have done so as neutrally as possible, a courtesy you did not seem able to extend to me. I do offer an apology if you believe it was wrong of me to ask you to conform to the same standards as you sought to hold me to, and I also apologise if you found it rude of me to ask you to moderate your tone somewhat. I can only ask you to understand I did so because I found your tone condescending. If either of these issues caused you offence, perhaps it is you who is failing to acknowledge complaints regarding behaviour. Finally I must add, with all due respect, I would be grateful if you did not remove my comments from your talk page unneccessarily. I wish you good luck with future endeavours and hope when our paths next cross we can move on from this discussion. Hiding talk 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CMCC

Just updated it (new collaboration's Spider-Man, BTW), since I noticed you hadn't on Sunday.

Y'know, there must be a more efficient way of doing it than the way its' set up right now - SoM 14:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Graphic novel list

Hi, Hiding. Wanted to get your opinion about a Peter deletion. I responded to it in the Discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graphic_novel#Removals (scroll down to "Actually, I've always found lists incredibly useful"). I've suggested a list broken down into categories. Another, perhaps better, way of doing a categorized list might be "Award-winning graphic novels" and "Graphic novels adapted to TV or film". This would allow for the reasonable point he brings up of how to limit the list and keep it from being unwieldy, while also providing a useful guidepost to specific titles that (like Maus) aren't mentioned with the scope of the piece proper. Any thoughts to help better this?

On a separate note, kudos for taking the time to motivate contributors and keep people enthused and focused. I wouldn't have thought to write a Nightstalkers entry if not for the group suggestion. -- Tenebrae 19:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Kurando-san and WikiProjects

This bot is adding the inactive template to projects which already have it, simply because they are still categorised in Category:WikiProjects, due to a prior consensus that they should be dual categorised so as to make them more readily viewable. Whether that consensus is correct or not is another matter, but there it is. Hiding talk 16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that keeping them in Category:WikiProjects means that the bot has to traverse additional pages it doesn't need to? Furthermore, it's just unnecessary clutter. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of that consensus, I wasn't even party to the consensus, I'm just pointing it out. People felt it wasn't unnecessary clutter, but that the projects were more readily viewable and likely to be restarted if they were dual categorised, and that it would prevent creating duplicate projects. I'm not sure people were aware of the bot at that time, perhaps the bot hadn't been set up for that task back then. Maybe if the bot was set up to check if they were already labelled with template:inactive, that would solve the problem? Hiding talk 09:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that there are several ways to write {{inactive}} that I would have to check for correct? This doesn't count any template that has been made a redirect to {{inactive}}. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Proposed tags

please replace with something like {{guideline}} or {{style-guideline}} or the other one. -- Zondor 10:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish cats

Hi Hiding, thanks for the tip on Martin O'Neill. I've added him to Category:Irish people in Great Britain. Arniep 02:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight --> of the month?

I've just noticed that the current COMICSCOTF has overrun by a week again - and no-one's noticed.

Perhaps changing it to monthly (CMCCM) might be an idea? - SoM 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

reply

The way I saw it, there was obvious consensus to merge, with only weak arguements for merging either way (although more were in favour or colour), but I thought it would be a bit silly to move 49 articles rather than 1. If you think there is strong enough reason to move to colour then I can set my bot to do it. thanks Martin 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

hhmmm, that was devious by dreamguy, problem is that there was no consensus in the result (other than to merge), yet it had to go one way, now I know you would expect to go with the (very small) majority, however in this case the voting was essentially just America vs. Britain, which is not the way to find a sensible answer. I can't think of any reason to reverse the current decision, after all the fundamental problem is that neither spelling is better or worse than the other, and I don't find the result of the debate even remotely compelling, all the arguements were equally weak. We could run it through the mailing list to see what others think, but I think it is academic really. Martin 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The mailing list is always full of debate, although this issue is possibly not meaty enough for people to get their teeth into. I am perfectly open to changing the decision, but your analogy to arguing the toss is an accurate one. Also, I was surprised to hear you werent an admin, have you considered it before? Unless you have some skeletons in your closet I'm sure you would be a shoo-in. Martin 14:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I wasn't implying anything, its just sometimes you come across apparently good admins, only to find they have had a bunch of RFCs and blocks against them. You should give it a go if you're intersted, I would be happy to do the nominating if you want. Martin 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Village Pump archival

A couple of days ago, Radiant asked on Bot requests for a bot to archive high-traffic pages. He specifically mentioned the administrator's noticeboard and the subpages of the village pump. I've since completed enough of the bot that, barring any major problems, it could be ready for use on the Pump after about another hour of programming and subsequent testing. (I won't, however, be testing it except locally with simulated data until the 23rd, due to the required wait time at WP:BOT.) The reponse at WP:AN was positive, but the mention on WP:VPT hasn't drawn any response. I'm not going to run a bot if there's any objection to it on the pages it'll be working on; since you've been doing most of the archiving for the pump lately, could you comment? Here, my talk page, or the entries at WP:VPT, the noticeboard, or Crypticbot's entry at Wikipedia talk:Bots, any would do. —Cryptic (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the bot running as of yet, or should I manually archive the pumps for a little while longer? Hiding talk 09:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:BOTS mandates a one-week waiting time between the proposal on its talk page and running, so the earliest I could start would be around 20:00 today. My intention is to start it in about 24 hours, as that's the time of day I run it to find orphaned afds. —Cryptic (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I see the bot archived, which is brilliant, but it didn't clear out older messages from the archives. Was that expected? Hiding talk 20:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was. As written, it can only move or remove sections whose latest timestamp is a given number of days in the past; thus, during read-only tests on the archives, it removed many sections that had been on the archive pages for less than 7 days, even though the individual sections were more than 14 days old. The feature's currently set so that it won't remove anything from the archive pages during the month of November, so they'll need to be maintained by hand for the next week. (I'd meant to do so after it finished running, but got distracted in real life; I'll go do it now.) —Cryptic (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Category consistency

There are at present several categories up for renaming from "People of city" to "Citians", and a number for renaming the other way around. For the sake of consistency, maybe we should put up a central discussion to find out which of these has consensual preference? The main issue seems to be how well-known the adjectives for city names actually are. Radiant_>|< 13:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Royal titles

The reason why royal titles do not follow the most common name rule is because they can't. It is impossible. In many cases the MCN known for a royal figure is unique to their country and so can't be used because many countries with monarchs use the exact same name for their monarchs too. For example, there have been Queen Elizabeths in half the monarchies of Europe. People in each country may see their monarch under the MCN of Queen Elizabeth but it simply can't be used in that format. Wheres queens regnant have an ordinal (number), queens consort (wives of kings) don't. The are impossible to refer to by their local MCN because most countries have had so many for the one name. England had 6 Queen Catherines. Just about everyone has had their own Queen Mary. Most Common Name can only work when there is only one potential user of a name, and that name is recognised internationally. That can't be done with royal names because, for example, you'd be left with Queen Catherine (of Aragon), Queen Catherine (de Medici), Queen Catherine (Howard), etc etc. The international way to avoid this is to use maiden names for deceased ex-royal consorts. So instead of writing "Among the most popular consorts were Queen Catherine and Queen Catherine, Queen Mary and Queen Mary" one writes "Among the most popular consorts were Catherine of Aragon and Catherine Parr, Mary of Modena and Mary of Teck."

Another problem is that often the most common name for a royal is complete bullshit. For example, billions worldwide called the late Lady Diana Spencer Princess Diana. The trouble is, as Diana herself kept telling people, Diana never was a princess. She was married to a prince, and as such had what is called a courtesy title of Princess of Wales. But she never was a princess in her own right. (In contrast the previous Princess of Wales, Mary of Teck was herself a princess of birth so she could be called Princess Mary. To add a further twist, the current Princess of Wales, Camilla, chooses not to be called Princess of Wales even though she is Princess of Wales, preferring instead the subsidary title Duchess of Cornwall!!!). Different people at different times used different most common names for Diana, some of them completely mistakenly. Another example is the fact that 95% of the world think that Diana's ex-husband's surname is Windsor. That 95% are 100% wrong. It actually is Mountbatten-Windsor (as was confirmed for Wikipedia by the Prince of Wales's office when there was confusion over the issue and his office was asked what the correct answer is. His surname was changed by an Order-in-Council in the early 1960s.).

WP tried at the very start to use the MCN rule in royalty. It proved not merely unworkable but made WP a laughing stock, with Europeans, Americans, Asians, etc all fighting edit wars to force their MCN (which no other continent used) onto the page. A massive debate took place over the wikilist, talk pages, linked pages, drafts, etc as to what to do and a consensus (90%+) agreed that MCN was impossible to use (as indeed it is impossible to use for most people who hold offices with names and titles unique to a country rather than possessing worldwide usage). Instead WP abandoned any attempt to use MCN in areas where MCN is unworkable, and instead applied a rule of using names and titles accurately, rather than by what people think is accurate (Princess Diana and Charles Windsor are just two examples of the many widely used names internationally that are in fact made-up bullshit, myths with no basis in reality.

As a result, the naming conventions on royalty are a closed issue. They undergo periodic tweaking as new problems arise, but there is rarely more than 5% support for returning to the MCN mess that was here at the start and which was so bad that it got international press coverage, earning WP a headline in one magazine in 2004 as the "stupidest site on the net". MCN is unworkable when it comes to royalty, the papacy, clerical titles and a whole lot more. It only works where (1) there is only one possible owner to a name (and that rarely is the case with monarchs) (2) where everyone worldwide recognises that name (again does not work, because in monarchies each country instinctively think of their monarch of that name, not someone elses'), and (3) the name does not change (again that does not work with monarchies. Most monarchs will have had a host of different titles before becoming king or queen. Prince Charles (which BTW, though his Most Common Name is also a fiction. He ceased to be Prince Charles in 1952 when his mother became queen, because he automatically got a new title that replaced Prince Charles. But that doesn't stop everyone using a non-existent name. He is actually The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (all together), or Prince of Wales. He is however The Prince Charles (using the 'The' is important!) in Scotland. (see how complicated it all is!) was born Prince Charles of Edinburgh in 1948, became Duke of Cornwall in 1952, Prince of Wales in the late 1960s, and is also Duke of Rothesay, etc etc. It is not like a simple country's name like France or the United States where the name does not change and where there is only one France.

If it sounds complicated, that is because it is (very, very). The royal NCs have been used for about 2 years and are pretty much set in stone, simply because every other alternative is either unworkable, laughable, inaccurate, impossible to follow or just plain dumb. MSN is, by its very nature, effectively useless as a guide on royal naming (and indeed on many topics). I hope that helps you understand what is a very complicated topic. FearÉIREANN 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OHOTMU articles.

• I'm not entirely up on this stuff, so I'll ask you. Do we need both The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe articles?

Nope, they're dupes. I've dropped {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} tags on them for now. - SoM 20:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Aleste dot jaypeg

I fixed the image copyright info. The image is a scan of the front cover of the game's instruction booklet. I changed the copyright tag to Fairusein|Robo Aleste.PiccoloNamek 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Adversary.gif

User:ScifiterX's contributions list says he last edited two & a half months back, FTR.

And the image itself looks like a cleaned-up OHOTMU image. And following the "External link" in the Adversary (comics) page shows that it was uploaded there two months before SX uploaded it to WP. - SoM 21:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Image Tagging Image:Albhed.jpg

Thank you for the heads up. When i get back to my normal machine in a few days, I'll look into getting the information you specified. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Hiding...

Dear Hiding, Thanks for the image tag correction advice for Image:Agentcorrigan.gif. I changed the tag to "gfdl-persumed". Hope that will be enough, I copied that image long time ago from a site, I'll try to find which site it is. Meantime the "persumed" tag hopefully enough, I guess. Thanks for notifying me Hiding, I really appreciate it. Best wishes from Kerala,India and a Happy Christmas to you. --Cyril Thomas 11:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alexrider.JPG

Brookie here - thanks for the note - I was trying to help my son out - who you posted the note to! Kids! If the picture is a book cover as he says then it is almost certainly fairuse - which is what the tag he'd used was and if not that then promotional would cover it. I can't see any need to disclose a source for a book cover - as it would seem to be irrelevent, but the name of the book would be sensible! Hope this makes sense! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 15:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi me again - I have spoken to the deliquent and deleted it - I think he was a bit confused! Brookie: A collector of little round things 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alexrider.JPG 2

Hi, Electricmoose here. Thanks for the message on the Alex Rider picture. I know the picture has been deleted, but for future referance the picture was copied from the Alex Rider website and is also on all of the book covers in the series; it is also the main (unofficial I guess) Alex Rider logo and is used in advertising etc. Thanks again for the message, I think all of my other picture are tagged correctly. User:Electricmoose 19:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I have promoted you to adminship. Congratulations. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies before using those shiny new buttons. Raul654 05:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA

I have just seen Raul's notice - well done - use the mop well! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cheers

No, I don't believe we have interacted before, but I have seen enough of your work to be impressed and to be confident in my support. Congratulations, good luck, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats from me, too. And no problems with the support - you'll be great. I coulda sworn you already were an admin. If you need any help or have any questions, you know where I am (I see that KnowledgeSeeker's said the same so you've got a choice :) Grutness...wha? 10:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Choose me! Choose me! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats! --MONGO 10:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian 11:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. It has been a while since we spoke, hasn't it? Anyway, I'm glad you're an admin: do good things! -Splash^talk 11:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a pleasure Hiding, and thoroughly deserved on your part, well done. Martin 14:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I've been made an admin so I come here cap in hand to say thanks for your support!

NP :). You've come a way since creating single-article stubs :) - SoM 19:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yo Hiding, congrats. In response to your question on my talk page, the "block" link won't automatically block someone, it will just take you to the Special:Blockip page with their user information filled in. You'll still have to pick a time range and click "submit", so it will prevent you from accidentally blocking anyone. Cheers! --DDG 02:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image Tagging Image:Algernon Crowe (Mys-Tech board member).jpg

I have now added source and copyright holder info for Image:Algernon Crowe (Mys-Tech board member).jpg, although it seems that there is no standardised way of formatting this info.

Jewish categories

I would be grateful if you could reconsider your vote on these as the previous vote was only on categories which link Jewishness by country not by occupation. The vote did not deal with any categories such as Jewish philosophers or Jewish classical musicians, therefore to claim there was a consensus to delete these previously is misleading. I really do not see how these two categories are at all frivolous. However, I do agree that Category:Jewish baseball players is too specific, and Category:Jewish American actors is unworkable as people may identify as Jewish as well as quite a few other ethnicities so could end up in multiple variations of these nationality-ethnicity-occupation categories. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people Regards Arniep 15:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hiding, I don't think that categorizing all Jewish people in Category:Jews is going to serve a useful purpose really. I think that categories such as Category:Jewish philosophers, Category:Jewish classical musicians, and Category:Jewish scientists serve a very useful purpose as they show how Jewish people have made a significant contribution to these areas, just as Category:African American musicians shows how African Americans have made a great contribution to popular music. I am not really bothered about the other categories but I would be grateful if you could at least give these three a reprieve. Regards, Arniep 18:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I actually originally created Category:Jewish classical musicians as Category:Jews in music, and Category:Jewish visual artists as Category:Jews in art but they were nominated for renaming by another user who disliked the wording (I also created a Category:Jews in science category but it was speedy deleted as Category:Jewish scientists already existed). I wouldn't be against Jewish people in if that would be a wording that people would prefer. Arniep 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

In Response to Your Thanks

Just to clarify, we actually have never met before. I am a WIkipedian who is somewhat new to the system, but has been around for awhile, and I tend to check the RfA occasionally. I vote for people who I feel deserve to be Admins, even if my reasoning is sometimes not the same as others. I wish you luck in your Admin-ship! --Martin Osterman 02:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

My pleasure. Congratulations, and best of luck. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image Tagging Image:Alleria-warcraft2-exp-heros-image.jpg and Image:Alterac-warcraft2-with-orc-symbol.jpg

G'day, which tag is appropirate (if any) for video game manual scans? (well technically these come from scans of the manuals allready provided on the video game CD's... very grey area? lol? Thanks - User:UnlimitedAccess

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, it isn't the tag that is in question, but rather that you should state that fact when uploading them, as follows:

* Source: from the video game manual to the Blizzard Entertinments video game Warcraft 2, image from instruction manual as provided on the video game cd.

You should also add any copyright information regarding the images contained within the manual. Was there any?

Thanks for getting back to me with the source by the way. Hiding talk 21:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries over the next few weeks I will go through and update the images I have uploaded... (about 150 warcraft ones alone.. :P) - User:UnlimitedAccess

Re: Image:015.jpg

Hmm, yes looks like a little "upload war" happened there. The "bottom" revision was presumed to be GFDL so an option would be to just delete the Anime image revisions that where uploaded on top of it (and remove it from the page) and revert the page history to the GFDL version too... The uploader never did give a source though (someone else asumed they where GFDL), and it's been like that for a while now, so if you want to play it safe you could just list it on IFD and explain the situation there, or at least leave a note on the image page and request some input on the IFD talk page or something like that... Sorry I can't be more help I was my way out when I noticed your message and am in a bit of a hurry right now. --Sherool (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Query on how to block

Yes, it works exactly as you thought: go to Special:Blockip/213.249.155.237, enter the user name or IP address, select the duration of the block, and give a reason (in this case something like "persistent vandalism"). One caveat: if it's an AOL IP (as listed on the block page; this one isn't), don't block for more than a few minutes at a time. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:African American athletes to category:African American track and field athletes

since discussion occurring on this how developed and there s agreement that the word "athlete" used this way is and Americanism and not meant as a sportspeople of athletics, i m gonna go and strike out the proposed name in favour of Category:African American sportspeople. please revert this edit if for some reason you object. Regards, -Mayumashu 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles Mills Gayley

_ _ Hi, Hiding, and thank you for stating yr concern abt this speedy (which another user nominated, & i agreed with and carried out). I don't blame you for questioning the grounds; IMO the "claim of notability" concept needs as much explication as does WP:PN -- which i suppose would lead to only a little fewer problems, as some admins would ignore it as freely as some ignore the (to me) very clear patent-nonsense commentary.
_ _ If you wish, i will approach the nominator and propose that

1. i un-speedy CMG; that would be on the grounds that i may have made a mistake; i'd have to do a little research & see whether that is kosher w/o going thru VfU, and i think it would deserve at least a notification on WP:VfU; and
2. the nominator then AfD it, inviting a side discussion of whether the Speedy was proper.
   

_ _ Think that over & let me know where you come down. I would welcome more community guidance on this; i think this would not be WP:POINT, since there is clearly a real disagreement between you and the nominator (whether or not between either of you-all and me); IMO the debate would be informative and perhaps valuably so.
--Jerzy•t 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see here:

_ _ You said

• Only just noticed this got deleted.

Simple statement of relevant fact.

_ _ And

• I'm not sure I agree this was a speedy candidate to be honest, ...

Factual expression about having an opinion; the opinion is politely hedged.

_ _ And

• ... it certainly asserted the notability of the subject.

An implicit opinion about the meaning, in context, of "assert" and "notable" -- Oh-oh, and described with "certainly"! That's a hyperbole, and as such that's ... uh ... uh ... that's a violation of the Vulcan Code! Churlish? Nah!

_ _ And

• That said, ... :

Hmm, perhaps a sarcastic dismissal of your own previous point, serving to accuse me of harshly dismissing it by the deletion. That's a little too sophisticated to be called "churlish", and IMO it's fair play, even if slightly ... contentious.

_ _ And

• ... it probably would not have survived afd, ...

Reasonable statement.

_ _ And

• ... although I would have liked to have seen how it got on and at least had the chance to argue its case.

Reasonable expression of reasonable disappointment.

_ _ And

• ... Still, c'est la vie.

Vague as to degree of disappointment and/or resentment, but such vagueness is probably an ideal balance between frankness and cooperativeness.

_ _ So you haven't been churlish, and perhaps it is i who owes you, for going over the top in giving at least an appearance of extreme care for fairness, co-operation, and rationalism -- which might leave you uncomfortable enough to engage in uncalled-for self-criticism. And maybe i just did it again. [smile; shrug]

--Jerzy•t 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You said

However, yes, the speedy clause needs debate, and perhaps I'll look at that too. I might have a trawl through the delete logs and pick better candidates for a fight. This probably isn't the right case though.

I think that also avoids WP:POINT, but IMO the ideal avenue would be to keep lks (you may already) to the bios where you think you've made a major contrib to identifying the subjects as notable (as well as keeping them on your watchlist); if one is AfD'ed you'll see it via watchlist, and tho deleted articles evaporate from your watchlist & contribs (IIRC), speedied articles will show up as red lks. IMO searching for others' questionably speedied articles is likely to be hard to sustain, since you'd have to at least glance at so much obvious crap. That is to say, the best way to find good test cases on notability assertion is to make them in the form of well-writ & AfD-survivable bios of worthy minor figures. (Hmm, of course you may have meant looking for articles you already worked on that got deleted, since i thk the edit-count tool among Kate's Tools has an option for viewing a user's deleted edits: i'd check, but it's down at the moment.) And, while i see no evidence of your being one of those who needs to be told so, IMO there's no harm (& at least some benefit to browsers of user-talk pages) in saying this often: that Wiki-politics is worth doing, but IMO not a worthy reason for more than briefly neglecting one's for-their-own-sakes editing projects.
--Jerzy•t 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mary Welsh Hemingway

I do not agree that being married to someone famous makes someone notable, although in this case it probably tips the balance away from CSD eligibility. I am sending this to AFD instead. Stifle 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What improvements do you suggest on Mary Welsh Hemingway's bio? John1963 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ireland & UK Portals

I see. The Ireland Portal is not about the country Ireland (not solely), but rather the island... That's indeed somewhat...curious. But under the circumstances I guess you're right. Although it does look weird on the template when we see the UK listed under "sovereign states" and Ireland under "Islands" (I noticed it when I was reading a completely unrelated Portal). Regards, Redux 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comicspanel no_source tags

I understand (and even agree) that having more source info for the comics panels we have would be a good and important thing. I removed the tags simply as a way of cleaning out the CAT:NS catagory of things that should not be deleted on sight. I assume you agree that such panels should not be deleted in this way. I'd suggest you add a note to the images, requesting further source info, and only add the no_source tag if/when you want them to be blown away. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page; but I had an additional question you might be able to help with. Is it consensus among those involved that album covers also require this explicit sourcing? I've noticed some album covers in the catagory, and I've been not deleting them. Should I start? JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sympathy

Hiding - No worries, man. I don't want you leaving, too. I'm glad to hear you're focusing on your central interest, not the politics. There really is plenty of easy, enjoyable, uncontroversial work to do on the 'pedia; the controversial stuff won't blow up if you leave it as long as you need to. I, at least, really appreciate your work here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

your edit of Maus

Removing statements just because they are unsourced is not really a good enough reason. Unfortunately >95% of Wikipedia content does not site a verifiable source; that doesn't make it deletable. We should instead try to improve the situation. See you around. ike9898 02:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comic book template

Thanks for your message and sorry for my failed try to convert comic book template. This was the first if-using template where my manual conversion process failed. I'm almost certain that if someone had written a converter it would spit out an error message when trying to convert Template:Comic book reference.

Please feel free to revert. I'm not disappointed at all. I understand that a working template is prime. I did a "related changes" listing and found no uses in articles so I was maybe a bit more bold than otherwise.

There is a heated debate on the bad side of meta-templates at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates and I feel that the whole technology behind if is at stake as we are accused of server strain by some proponents. As a response to that AzaToth created qif (see template talk:qif for docu) as a more server friendlier version of if. I might try to vote "if" for deletion in the future if I see we can convert to qif.

I have taken comic book to my user space template testing place at User:Adrian_Buehlmann/x2 (test cases at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/x2) for further examination. I feel there must be two if blocks that contain only "test" parts (no "then" parts), which is something that is not allowed with qif as it does not handled degenerate cases. But I can't see the problem at the moment. Maybe I will have a look at it at a later time.

Sorry again for disturbing! – Adrian | Talk 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On meta Template:Qif is named m:Template:If _→AzaToth 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hiding! I could help you setup a test environment under your user space. Shall I? – Adrian | Talk 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A new reply is on User_talk:Adrian_Buehlmann#Comic book template. – Adrian | Talk 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A new reply is on User_talk:Adrian_Buehlmann#Comic book template. – Adrian | Talk 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Invitation to comment

Even though we disagreed I thought your contribution was reasoned and civilized, and I wanted to invite you to comment on the call for deletion of the ammended category, here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15#Category:Pederastic lovers Regards, Haiduc 23:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Month

Hello Hiding/Archive 2005. Superhero, the article you supported is now Comics Collaboration of the Month. Please improve it in any way you see fit to bring it up to featured article standard. Thank you in advance, --Jamdav86 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

Pokemon test

I saw your User:Hiding/Pokemon test thing and thought it was hilarious (and all too true). I would suggest moving it (or copying it) to Wikipedia:Pokémon test. I think it deserves a spot in the Wikipedia namespace. If we can have Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we can certainly have this. Just a thought. Matt Yeager 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Hiding A well deserved subst:pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Civility on talk pages

How was I in the least uncivil or attacking you? Confused. Dyslexic agnostic 09:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you mean with T-man! I thought I had somehow said something bad to you. LOL! Thanks for the advice! <grin> Dyslexic agnostic 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MFD

Sure, I'll use those if I remember to, it's just that I was a bit confused because the process had changed since the last time I'd used it (about a month ago). I believe that happens to a lot of people. But in general I disapprove of making processes less accessible - that includes the bunch of abbreviations people use on IFD, and the suggestion that different processes require different templates for the same thing. Radiant_>|< 10:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been meaning to put all 'major' policies on a central page (WP:NUT). But there's quite a lot of them, and if one would include guidelines then it becomes troublesome. What we'd probably need is a Changelog. Hm, come to think of it, why not? Let's start one. Wikipedia:Changelog. Please help and advertise? Radiant_>|< 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry

Dyslexic ena I have a deal, we became pal recently--T for Trouble-maker 10:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

- Whatevah --T for Trouble-maker 10:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiding, I'm ashamed, but I'm gonna have to ask you to ask you to be more organized when writing, English is my second languaje, I had a hard time answering you, all because of your way of spacing paragraph... i know I'm being a dck, but since you are so special. I feel confortable enough to ask you. By the way, I'm not so perfect either, I know, if I had my points the way they are now since the begining, you wouldn't have miss them. They all tend to say the same: we need more quotes--T for Trouble-maker 11:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All i want is a freaking copypaste of york, not a formal thing, not for the article, just for me and the others to read. I've started answering my own points below rather than changing them. That's all i'm ofering. Stick with it, i'm tired of repeating myself, so I won't do otherway. And stick to the issues, please.--T for Trouble-maker 12:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

could you focus instead of complainind? you are the one replying to what i say but always missing the points. Pease quit whining, is really obnoxious, I only care for Batman--T for Trouble-maker 22:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)