User talk:Hiding/Archive 2006

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



Comics in 2005 Question

Hiding, I've been cleaning up references to "Epic" and came across the November 28th entry. Do you know what the sentence about the NYT is supposed to mean? I can't figure out what to change the link to without understanding! John (Jwy) 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

that works. On other instances like that I've dropped the link altogether as the information they get there isn't very useful in the context. If they know what the word means, then they should get it. I wasn't reading carefully enough when I first saw it (and didn't want to sign up with NYT to read the article linked). But as it stands, it should be fine. thanks! John (Jwy) 06:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith

Thank you for assuming good faith. I wasn't trying to close down debate, I only wanted to encourage people to centralise their discussion on userboxes.--God of War 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


_ _ I wrote on Template talk:Marvel-Comics-stub

Spam is rude. Spam is self-centered. Spam sucks.


Wiki-projects should not suck. Stop it.

and also referred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates (which i had written before reading the Marvel-tmplt tk, but saved abt a minute later than the edit i just mentioned).
_ _ Almost a half an hour later, you responded on that tmplt-tk page, AFAICS about stub-policy matters only.
_ _ As i said, i'd by then already posted at almost the same time my first post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates#Second Independent Thread (then the only content in section "W-Proj refs in Stub tags"), including:

...WP and the comics articles will be best helped by removing from these templates these invitations to regard comic-project editors as self-centered and rude.

You indicated reading this 4 minutes after your previous comment, in saying

Oh, and having just read your message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates, perhaps you could bear Wikipedia:Civility in mind when throwing around terms such as "self-centered and rude".
Thank you. Hiding talk 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ 8 minutes later, on my talk page, you wrote (my emphasis added, to focus on the civility aspect w/o omitting its context)

I've responded to your removals at Template talk:Marvel-Comics-stub. I'd appreciate it if you could respond, as I'm unconvinced by your arguments, but neither do I wish to engage in an edit war. I'd also appreciate it if you could moderate your tone, it doesn't really aid the discussion. I can't really see the need to tell people they suck. Hiding talk 21:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ I was thoro in organizing that chronology, trying to be as clear as i can what comments you are referring to when, but i end just vaguely puzzled; never mind.
_ _ I've also taken the opportunity to read the civility policy that you politely & IMO wisely lk'd; i've never, i think, had it directly cited to me, and probably have always read the term on WP as "forgoing of personal attacks", while i find its counsel usefully far broader. I consciously considered, as i was writing, that it was important to stick to the characterization of the text, and not of the editors responsible for it, and implicitly counted -- contrary to the civility standard -- on others taking the responsibility to distinguish such characterizations from personal ones. (I told myself more or less that

"Stop sucking" (an echo of Letterman's parody of a half-time peptalk that ends "Get out there and suck!") sounds too personal, even tho it'd be nice to put across "stop doing what makes the project suck" more punchily than "Wiki-projects should not suck. Stop it."

But that was still not what the civility standard is about!)
_ _ I agree that i fell short of what WP:CIV urges; in particular, i did indeed throw around "self-centered and rude", and "suck" and for that matter "spam". And even tho i didn't "tell people they suck", i probably have myself to blame for eliciting that intimation.
_ _ There's a limit to how seriously i'll take this "official policy": it seems to need that status primarily to keep people from unilaterally removing

"civility" is just an informal rule

from it, as they might to turn it into an uncivil club that they'd like to wield. But nevertheless, your reference to it has been valuable for me. Thanks.
--Jerzyt 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Resolution

At the least, sure, i can pursue it in other cases without dragging you back into it. But are you asking me to think thru whether i can drop the issue completely where it stands now? (That'd be a lot easier to do, if it turns out to be very hard to find the instances elsewhere! [grin])
--Jerzyt 23:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin Comments

Hey there, just wanted to say I read your comments over at her rfc, and they made a lot of sense. I've not had the time to read the full dicussion(s) yet, but though I am opposed entirely to her actions, I am mindful of the fact that such a legitimate position as is held by many (if not the majority of) users, can quickly become lost and degraded in value in what is seen from the exterior as a 'mad mob rabble thirsting for blood' as I believe was mentioned on the corresponding rfa. It was a welcome sight to see a clear mind amongst the throng. - Hayter 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:MFD SlimVirgin

Oops. Fixed, thanks. I seem to have some sort of discussion closing disease lately. Anyway, thanks!--Sean|Black 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, closed them. Thanks!--Sean|Black 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Has the template any demonstrable consensus behind it? I notice we have {{Not verified}}, would that not also, and perhaps better, suit your purpose? No and no. Please feel very welcome to bring it to TfD so those who delete nn articles all the time can comment. The rationale for {{Notability}} is in its first edit summary. Thank you for your note. -- Perfecto  11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to see also the policy page Wikipedia:Deletion policy which lists these guidelines as reasons for nominating articles to AfD. -- Perfecto  14:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm more for adding WP:CORP and WP:WEB to the policy page, since it reflects the current practice in AfD. But I never insist, so do what fits you. -- Perfecto  16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Already had the edit window open for comments! I've heaped a little praise on you there, but i won't be afraid to gush on you a bit here: please, oh please, have my wikibabies. You have done the work of twelve editors, and should be roundly applauded. - brenneman (t) (c) 12:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: My observation. I'm actually trying not to contribute to this too much now, but I'm having a hard time keeping my hand off it, so to speak. Think of me as on a twelve-step program to get back into article space. - brenneman (t) (c) 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sourcing

And thank you for the work you've done with the guidelines. I, too, look forward to working with you on other articles. -- Dragonfiend 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sheep vote MFD

Hi, you closed the sheep vote MFD as delete, but you didn't actually delete it. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote for delete is 63% (7 for, 4 against). Since this falls below what it generally considered as consensus, wouldn't it be better if you add a line about it in the summary of debate ? Tintin Talk 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Since 'weak' votes are not mentioned, I guess it is up to the closing admin to decide on it. But in such borderline cases, it would be helpful if you add an explanation so that the readers can be certain that it is a deliberate decision and not a mistake. Tintin Talk 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I delete articles asap after closing the debate, just to avoid the possible confusion. But you left a note on AN, so you did at least alert people, even if noone listened. It is something of a tricky debate to close. Obviously ignoring Carnildo, I'm also inclined to give little time to Sebastian who states a refusal to even entertain the debate properly (including after the provision of a link he should have found for himself). Extreme Unction writes a very persuasive comment which at least one other editor adopts (and this is, after all, a discussion, not a vote), although the reasoned keepers are not completely without merit. Xoloz's comment, whilst possibly true is quite effectively rebutted by Cryptic, whose comment also harks back to the previous VfD. The previous VfD was not handled as well as it might have been, and from reading that, I think there is little support to retain the page, at least on the English Wikipedia (there were transwiki to Meta suggestions which have some merit). Taken altogether, I think that finding a rough consensus to delete is reasonable and certainly within admin discretion. I must confess to being unsure of why you userfied it, though, but that's up to you.

However, if this were to come up on Deletion Review, there is a chance it would be overturned since it is below the numerics of two-thirds, and no reasoning is given. When closing a debate that is borderline or one in which your discretion is used, a few sentences explaining why you did what you did is an effective way of making your decision stick, and demonstrating that you were, indeed, within your discretion. It also doesn't leave people wondering why you did what you did. It's both permissible, and encouraged. -Splashtalk 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've actually never used Special:Export, but it does say on there that spitting out page history is 'temporarily' disabled. I think (and that's all, since I have never executed a transwiki, either) that what is most usually done is that the history is pasted onto the new talk page with a comment "Page history from en.wikipedia", or somesuch. -Splashtalk 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed your last message only now. Don't bother about this at all. Closing an MfD incorrectly (this may not even be incorrect, just confusing) is hardly a matter of life and death. And it is not as if those of us who make these comments do everything perfectly all the time :-) Tintin Talk 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Probably ask the user to who's space you moved it if they actually want it there bearing in mind the transwiki and delete or not as they say. It's an editorial decision to transwiki, though (apart from getting hold of the deleted history, but that's available upon request).-Splashtalk 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I like the intent, but its sheer length and amount of footnotes make the page somewhat impractical imho. R adiant _>|< 22:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, you've done to it what I've wanted to do, but not had the time to do, for some while. (I came to it to cross check something just now, and was greatly surprised.) Uncle G 04:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Well, the thing is that it really isn't a proposal. Tagging it as such leads to the misunderstanding that decisions cannot (and are not) be based on the concept of notability, when in fact such decisions occur daily. Of course the exact definition is up to debate and subjective, but that in concept is very wiki, and applies to many of our other guidelines (e.g. Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Attack page and Wikipedia:Reliable sources all fail to give an exact definition of the term they're describing, nor should they be required to). R adiant _>|< 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That sounds reasonable. That 'guideline' tag was put up too hastily. I think that since this was intended as an essay (and indeed, it is written as one, doesn't propose anything actionable, and mainly serves as an attempted definition of the term) it should remain an essay. I've replaced the guideline tag, instead adding a line that clearly states it's an essay rather than majority opinion, and points to Template:IncGuide. What do you think? R adiant _>|< 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh. I'll take a sensible discussion with you over the ruleslawyering nonsense of a certain group of other users any day. R adiant _>|< 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lists etc.

Hi Hiding, I think people are getting way too worked up about these lists. They are useful for those anyone who is researching or is interested in Secular Jewish culture as User:Smerus is doing (a PhD on Jewry in music), therefore it is no way an indiscriminate colllection of information, Regards Arniep 15:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession

Sorry for misunderstanding. I did not imply any bad faith on your part. However, I do believe that the discussion should be on that page should indeed stop, as it raises too much tension and blood pressure.--Pecher 15:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement Were I to initiate a phd into the colouring of ladies undergarments on any given day it would not by de facto make such information encyclopedic in my opinion was a direct attack on the integrity and value of the research being carried out by User:Smerus and therefore, in my opinion violated Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, a fact I was merely pointing out on the discussion page, Regards Arniep 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Hiding but it seemed to me that you were saying that David's research had as equal validity as "a phd into the colouring of ladies undergarments on any given day" . My description of your deletionist position is certainly justified as on the vote to delete all Jewish categories you stated:
Delete all. I find I'm very confused by these categories, they are in the category tree as both an ethnicity and a religion, which to me doesn't seem right. Hiding talk 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
and on the proposal to delete all Jewish lists you stated:
Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession/Archive -lists by religion-ethnicity and profession debate
Agree. I'm not convinced by the notability of such lists, being mindful of the precedent they set. Hiding talk 16:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Arniep 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have stated on the discussion that I accept User:Smerus' judgement in his accepting of your apology, I hope we can leave it at that. Arniep 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but how can you state the above are loosely connected (your words), one was a proposal to delete the majority of Jewish categories, and the other was to delete the majority of Jewish lists. To say that I should ignore the above statements that you made in a discussion on exactly the same subject is just not realistic. You stated that to acknowledge people as part of a Jewish community in the form of lists or categories is not of encyclopedic value, and that Jewish people should only be categorized under Category:Jews. Can I ask what encyclopedic use that would be, having such an enormous category not subdivided into professions? Arniep 21:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I find no retraction nor an apology in your recent statement. Further, your statement indicates I was at fault by accepting an apology which was not intended to be accepted in such a way. You leave me no other choice but to take this matter further. Hiding talk 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, I agree my statement was hot headed and accept your removal of it. I felt as if it was an attack on me personally as well as David as his research is in relation to my own relative. Arniep 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, I am sorry, that is really the first time I have ever said anything uncivil. It is just that I felt extremely stressed as we had already had the huge debate on the previous page where I thought I had made pretty good arguments to keep, and it felt like people were just trying to try again and again to delete the Jewish lists and categories. I really don't understand what people have against listing notable Jewish people in history. I agree that it is unhelpful in many cases to have people only in narrow categories, and not in a parent category, for example putting people in Jewish American actors, but not in American actors, but actually a lot of those in the former are also in the latter category. I noticed that someone removed people from Category:People from New York City and put them in Category:Manhattanites and Category:Brooklynites, really I would prefer if they could remain in both the narrower and the broader category. Arniep 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd apply the same argument to most other categories, i.e. I would like to be able to browse an alphabetical category of Category:Travel writers or Category:Opera singers knowing that all the people were there not hiding in some national or ethnic sub-category. Arniep 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, I can see where your coming from with the categories. I still feel that we cannot pretend that lists by nationality and profession are only there to subdivide people by geographic area. There is obviously an element of national cultural identity in linking the two. If it can be argued that an ethnicity or religion has an identity comparable to that of a nationality (i.e. Jews, Parsis, Roma, Sikhs, Catalonians, Basque) I don't see a problem with making lists that link them with professions. Some people may find them boring, but I don't see that as a good reason to delete. Arniep 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Re: your adding a reference to the Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). I have seen a bunch of your edits on comics articles over the past months and have been really impressed, 'specially on your contributions to Eddie Campbell's wikipedia page. So, thanks a whole lot! You rule. DollyD 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

categories vs. Flickr-style tags

Hi Hiding, Are you going to follow up with the developers about this (perhaps send mail to mail:wikitech-l or enter an enhancement request on Wikipedia:MediaZilla)? I'm not sure if my response at WP:VPT reads like it, but I think this is an excellent idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Hiding, thanks for the supportive comment. I guess I just needed a little break. I am outraged by the conduct of User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow; he is insulting, and further, his edits are horrendous. His obsession with his very few subject matters (mainly Batman related) has been an annoyance to most other editors of those pages. Now I am being wikistalked, in that he has moved into the whole limited series debate simply because I had begun editing this area. I will not be leaving wikipedia, and I will strictly edit T-Man's foolinshness. Further, I will ignore his rude comments towards me completely. Thanks again for your support. Dyslexic agnostic 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked at the criteria for Request for comment, thanks. I will certainly consider it, especially if T-Man continues with his attacks. Dyslexic agnostic 16:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

...BTW. I got the pages in my contribution list first and then hw wikistalked me. (I read above these words after answering you below). I even call him a stalker and harasser firts. We agreed in the past to leave insults, but since he won't stop calling me moron I guess he likes to be called names. History pages don't lie. Anyways, that's not important, since I started fighting fire with fire now, my only rule is never to delete info and rather copyedit. Other thing... he ignores all about DC and yet, he edits deleting stuff in several DC pages; as you can verify in the middle of this page and here.--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I suck

Well... that's because I suck... I'm not that sure about that "be bold" advise anomore. hah, hah. I dind't even finish to read your message, I'm gonna. But I was really expecting somebody with your reaction. The only thing I can say is I'm very sorry. I apologise.

If a series wasn't limited i wouldn't be called maxiseries. But I don't remember how are maxiseries call when they are within an ongoing series? And that got me confused: I guess my lesson here is never to "be Bold" when I'm confused. Sorry I got in your nerves on the process. --T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 18:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Did I insulted anyone? I agree with the no insults policy, but maybe I sliped. Particularly on talk pages. I'm sorry if I did... I moved "list of maxiseries" to list of "list of limited maxiseries". Then I did a bigger mistake by trying to fix things: Istead of moving back the info, erasing the redirect on "list of maxiseries", I tried to fix things by moving "list of maxiseries" to "list of l maxiseries", to then (having no page named list of maxiseries") move "list of limited maxiseries" to "list of maxiseries"... Then I learned the discussion page was named "Talk list of l maxiseries", and moved that to "Talk list of maxiseries". Everything seemed ok after that, but I guess there are going to be some functional errors if nobody with better skills than mine checks it.--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just erase list of limited series? its existence is just a mistake of mine that even I won't defend.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, I ment to say the "list of l maxiseries". hahaha--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Sorry. I always move talk pages with the article. Some of the page moves by T-Man he did by creating new pages and shifting the contents. I won't be making further moves, as we have only two pages now, limited series (comics) and list of limited series. Dyslexic agnostic 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The original history is here. Dyslexic agnostic 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to answer your question on limited series (comics), but it is probable inadequate. I favour the move to limited series, if you can use a robot to replace all the many wikis. i am fairly certain everyone can be replaced without concern, as they all relate to comics (the term not used in other genres). I apologize again for the archive... I didn't realize that an active straw poll was in session. Dyslexic agnostic 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

limited series

I there a list of limited series?? that's a good idea there can be all the maxiseries, miniseries and regular limited series and even tie-ins... (Sorry, I overread again after editing)--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, I saw you were revising "limited series (comics) to "limited series", and helped you along the way! Dyslexic agnostic 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So you moved the list of maxiseries to "list of limited series" I've got only one thought before you go any further... you are man, Hiding!! great idea!! keep it real!!... You are the coolest. You are like the Solomon King of wikipedia. BTW, do you think the "Tie-in series" term is ok? Those limited series have been called that for sure, but I dunno if that's the most apropiated term--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of limited series

Yes. Brian K. Vaughn has made clear on several occasions that Y and Ex Machina will only run for 60 and 50 issues respectively [1] [2]. Thus by any reasonable definition they are limited series. If this does not comply with the current definition of a limited series, then I suggest that definition be changed. Iron Ghost 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so promptly. I'm afraid I can not agree. If Ex Machina and Y are not limited series then what are they? I understand that they do not meet with the current definition of a limited series which is why I suggested that the definition is in error. I suggest a Straw Poll be set up on the limited series list talk page to resolve this issue. I trust you will have no objections to this? With regard to the article where Vaughn refers to the series as ongoing I think that if you read the article more carefully you will find that you have taken his words out of context. Iron Ghost 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the fact that you mentioned that Vaughan refered to Y as an ongoing series without also noting that he also said that the series would end at around 60 issues led me to conclude that you had misread the article. My apologies.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion and this current discussion is creating more heat than light. Therefore I've removed Y and Ex Machina from the list to comply with the definition as it stands and have suggested a change of criteria on the talk page. Hopefully this will settle the matter one way or the other. Iron Ghost 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Template request

Hi, I'm trying to clear out the backlog at the requested templates page and wanted to ask you about Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Comic_art_citation_templates. It looks like you created Template:Comic strip reference for this. Is the request closed or are you still looking for a hand on getting things working? --CBD 02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic's user page

Dyslexic's user page has been vandalized. Could you look into it? Thanks (I'm not really sure what the procedure is, I'm sure a revert's in order, but I was wondering about leaving that pleasant vandalism note on the anon user's talk page.) Thanks.--Gillespee 05:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Plus, can you determine if is a sockpuppet of T-Man? Dyslexic agnostic 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I will refrain from further talk on T-Man's page... I have just added a comment on T-man's overreaction and banning on the arbitration evidence page. I really want to work all this out, but I see now how poisoned the atmosphere is, and how T-man believes that I have a hidden agenda and cannot be taken at my word. Dyslexic agnostic 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Alan Moore has been selected as the comics collab of the month. Please stop by and see what you can contribute! ike9898 02:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Hiding, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander

Yeah, it should have been noted on the AfD, and that was an oversight on my part. Sorry about that. Ambi 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hiding, my rampage was out of place. I think I apologize and explain thngs to DA more apropiately now. There you can get a little better how come I outbursted in such inapropiate way. People doesn have to call you a bad word or attack you directly to offend you. I'm sure you can recall people on real life are likewise able to make you feel you like exploding in such indirect manner. You hit the blank when you remembered DA this, DA's words on my page, athough polite, coming from this person, come like knifes in the stomach.

Thanks for dealing with me.

--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh Computers

WP:SNOWBALL. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

whilst I understand how you came to close it early Then ignore my comment. :) Johnleemk | Talk 11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying my comments on Talk:Mesh Computers. I think we were trying to say the same thing about how the AfD was going (I guess the terminology I would use to describe a discussion like that would be that if the discussion hasn't run its course yet, that there ipso facto isn't a consensus there but rather that it is developing, with that implying that the flow of the discussion could change). And in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with DRV, I would say that the article would most likely have been kept deleted if not for the new evidence, though it probably would have had to have been as sparse a discussion as the first AfD listing. It seems quite common practice to keep things deleted if no redeeming content is found, regardless of errors in process. -- Jonel | Speak 01:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


No, sorry , what comments. I just edited, I don't think I removed anything, there was no edit conflict. What's happened - I'll take a look. Giano | talk 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there's the diff [3] God knows how I acheived that - I didn't even see your comments - what do we do now - do you put them back or me? Giano | talk 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I saw someone the other day moaning they had had an edit conflict without the sign coming up, and a similar thing had happened, and there was a long and convoluted reason why it happened which went over my head - but I would immaine that's what happened. Sorry anyway. Giano | talk 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

John Byrne

I guess my big issue here is that no other wiki biography page would quote what others have said about someone, especially if it just an opinion. Would we say "John Doe states that George Bush is a weasel?" No, because John Doe's statements ae irrelevant; what is relevant is what George himself did or did not do. Then why do it here? If these comments are by someone who actually was the subject of newsworthy interaction with Byrne, then there eyewitness evidence may be relevant. But there opinions don't mean anything. I'm not a Byrne-nut (a fan of his earlier work though)... my complaint is not in the POV category, but the "encyclopedic" issue. There must be a better way to get the points across... unless the real reason that there is so much controversy over this is that it isn't really worth putting on the page anyways. Dyslexic agnostic 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh Computers

Thanks for clarifying my comments on Talk:Mesh Computers. I think we were trying to say the same thing about how the AfD was going (I guess the terminology I would use to describe a discussion like that would be that if the discussion hasn't run its course yet, that there ipso facto isn't a consensus there but rather that it is developing, with that implying that the flow of the discussion could change). And in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with DRV, I would say that the article would most likely have been kept deleted if not for the new evidence, though it probably would have had to have been as sparse a discussion as the first AfD listing. It seems quite common practice to keep things deleted if no redeeming content is found, regardless of errors in process. -- Jonel | Speak 01:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the new evidence had nothing to do with my undeletion. The deletion was out of process, since it had been relisted and should have had five days discussion from relisting. It didn't need to be listed at deletion review, it was a no-brain undelete; the new evidence merely kept it from being relisted. I closed the review early because it was unnecessary, as an admin I can undelete such obvious out of process deletions. I spoke to John and through a series of misunderstandings, which seem to have characterised the whole affair, and seem to still, :) we came to the same conclusions. Hiding talk 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree that it could have been undeleted as out of process without the need for DRV. What I'm trying to say is that had it been taken there without the new evidence (and no one subsequently introduced it, making this scenario highly implausible as the company is clearly notable), there would have been a lot more "keep deleted" votes. I may be wrong about that. Anyway, I definitely agree with the outcome and commend you for your part in both the decision and subsequent discussion. -- Jonel | Speak 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the rewrite, it really did need it. I just came upon the article on dead-end pages, checked the history and saw nothing worthwhile there and for some reason didn't think to google that one before listing it :(. But the article looks good now so I'm happy enough. - Bobet 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Except for the later week on January on which I edited in good faith LODK and Limited Series, in a counter-offensive attitude, we both have claimed to be stalked, but I was the first and I've never admitted so. When ever he says so I feel he is mocking me. Never mind that, notice the dates of the edits. You will see that most of DA edits on my edits are mostly 1-2 hours after I edit and that. To make it easier to understand you can separate original edits (the ones in which a user makes a contrib. by adding material) from corrective edits (including blind reverts, counter-blind reverts, etc). Thanks.

Hiding, this T-Man is totally rude when I attempt peace. See his talk page. Help! Dyslexic agnostic 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

MFD archiving

I try moving the non-controversial discussions (including speedies) to the archive once a week. I won't archive any pages where there was any substantial discussion involved until 8 days + the time it takes me to look at the page and archive it. The way I understand it, a deletion subpage should not be removed from the daily log and deleted (mostly for AFD) if it was closed early, but if you think I archived something controversial, feel free to move it back. Tito xd(?!? - help us) 22:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What I usually do when closing is leave it on the "Closed discussions" section for a few days if it was controversial, and if it was an early close, leave it there until a few pages pile up and I archive them. If the listing is on the "closed discussions" section of the MFD page for a few days, then it is safe to archive, I think. But that's just my own opinion. Tito xd(?!? - help us) 22:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: British and Irish current events

I only just found the page yesterday and saw it was on the deletion list. It doesn't seem to require too much effort to put a few headlines from various sources, so I'll see how it goes. The most work seems to be archiving old months. Kurando | ^_^ 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Kurando | ^_^ 10:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Manga and anime barnstar

Hi, I noticed that you rejected a manga/anime barnstar (actually quite a while ago, I didn't notice before) on the basis of copyvio. While I don't know whether you just put in your 2 cents because of Wikipedia policy, or because you actually care about anime/manga, you might be interested to know that I've created an image which doesn't use any fair use or copyrighted images. Go Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#Proposal_-_Manga_and_Anime_Barnstar for the discussion. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Total Personal Attack

I am under TOTAL PERSONAL ATTACK by T-Man, here and here and here. Despite the 48-hour ban, he continues to use his own page to attack me, now attacking my credibility and professionalism!!! I ask for someone to intervene and stop it, and remove the attacks from history! Please! Dyslexic agnostic 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer.

Is it okay if I take a day or two to think about it? - SoM 02:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


As far as I know, he's not responded to any attempts to communicate with him, and he's also not stopped his pattern of behavior of repeatedly linking on hundreds of pages to a site that seems to be controlled by him. This is disruptive behavior, difficult to reverse, and I don't think a short temporary block is out of the question at all. If after the short block JamieHari continues his behavior, longer blocks can then be tried. — Lowellian (reply) 11:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hiding.
First, I want to say thank you for helping to maintain Wikipedia. Your diligence in monitoring posts such as mine help to make this a better place. No hard feelings. :)
Secondly, I have actually responded to earlier concerns to another gentleman who had mentioned something to the same effect earlier. He mentioned because of the nature of our project (comic-wiki), it would be okay to link, BUT only after a sufficient amount of content had been compiled to make the link of value. If you will notice all the links I create are to pages on my wiki that contain at least as much information (often MORE) than the Wikipedia article.
Thirdly, in response to the policy pages WP:EL and Wikipedia:Spam. In the first policy I draw your attention to section 'What should be linked to', subsection 5. We often contain more detailed information than Wikipedia. With regard to the Spam policy, the first paragraph of the aforementioned policy page mentions nothing specific to our situation. We are not a company, nor am I an individual... I act on behalf of a non-profit (fan-site) reference wiki that is in less than 1 year more detailed than Wikipedia. We have linked to Wikipedia in instances where Wikipedia has more information than us. The only fair thing for the reader is to provide the best available resource. We are it.
I certainly hope that you see I don't link for fun, but rather to also benefit BOTH projects, Wikipedia and our own.
Please feel free to respond on my usertalk page. I will look forward to your response. Cheers,
--JamieHari 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey Hiding,
I added another note to my talk page... Please have a look when you have the chance. :)
--JamieHari 19:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No Rain At All, Actually an Idea

I was wondering if maybe I could ask if people who agree with part of it(such as yourself), can just sign under part of it -- do you think that could be a good idea? Perhaps there could be a graph such as this

Agreement Towards Sections of Karmafist's Manifesto
User 1 2 3 4 5
Rick Block x
Karmafist x x x x x
Whoever x x x

And so on...

Also, I'm thinking of simplifying #4, the sub-arbcom thing is beginning to seem unnecessary, I put some ideas above yours, thank you for adding your ideas, please let me know if I can help out at all. Karmafist 20:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

DrBat, AriGold, 3RR

I've already hit DrBat once with a 3RR block. I wouldn't oppose hitting him again with another one (even for 48 hours) especially considering I specifically asked him NOT to engage in edit warring [4]. AriGold OTOH ... sure, hit him too. Time outs for both of them. howch e ng {chat} 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving the PROD talk page

I noticed you very diplomatically refrained from archiving my comments when you created the PROD talk page archive. I appreciate it, but it's not necessary - feel free to archive any comment of mine along with the rest of the cruft. ;)

-ikkyu2 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I revert something back to what THREE MODERATORS said was the better use, and remove an image that had been deleted 2 or 3 times in a week and you block me? Good one. AriGold 13:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Space (mathematics)

I'm trying to fix links to three-dimensional. For some pages it makes sense to link directly to space (mathematics). I noticed you were involved in a discussion at Talk:Space about removing this redirect, but didn't get any input from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Any reason i shouldn't just go ahead and remove this redirect? EricR 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to change links of the form "three dimensional space" to "three dimensional X space", where X is topological, euclidian, vector etc. Didn't even notice there was an article at three dimensional space.
What i really wanted was an article at space (mathematics), thought it might be confusing to go from a mathematics article to space and see personal space, spaces in psychology etc. But after going through the links to three dimensional and space (mathematics) i only found a handful of articles that would be a problem. Better to try and change those article than remove the redirect i guess. EricR 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your offer

Would you mind if I nominated you for adminship? I know we don't always see eye to eye, but I doubt you'll go mad with the power, and your work on WP:COMIC and related articles is strong enough, I would hope, to stand you in good stead. Hiding talk 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Take as long as you want. I'd be happy to nominate you if you ever want it. Hiding talk 09:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're still happy to nominate to nominate me, please go ahead (honestly, I don't see myself passing, but what the hey, I'm sure I'll benefit from the experience :)) - SoM 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a guy :). And thanks. - SoM 23:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism protection

Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism: Opponents argue that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) [5]

The source is being used as a primary source to give evidence for the above claim, that "opponents of a-capitalism think... etc", since are "opponents of a-capitalism". Infinity0 talk 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

3 people (4 including an IP user) including me support the addition of this source; RJII is the only one so far who doesn't. He is basically disputing the legitimacy of's claims to be anarchist, which I think is absurd. Infinity0 talk 22:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There are four people who support the inclusion of the source, but RJII hasn't had a chance to reply yet. Infinity0 talk 16:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The above is my response. Or did you mean a direct one to your question, which would be "yes, since it's already being used as one". Infinity0 talk 18:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. RJII is just grasping at smoke on that point. Infinity0 talk 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you may need to lock the article again. Infinity refuses to allow the article to state that the FAQ was authored by self-described "social anarchists" that oppose individualist anarchism. The reader needs to know that it's coming from a communist perspective. Infinity wants to hide that for some reason. This is a very partisan source that openly says it's out to discredit anarcho-capitalism. It really needs to be noted where they're coming from. Thanks. RJII 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev's RfA

"Having reread the first request it appears there are doubts over POV pushing and personal attacks".

Which doubts? Can you provide a single meaningful diff? Although I also voted neutral, your rationale struck me as weird and totally unapplicable to Alex. --Ghirla | talk 15:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy Terror, Batman

Hiding, we've worked really hard in the last month to make the Batman article NOT just 'list all your favorite Batman stories.' There's plenty of stuff in there that IS a critical part of Batman history. Before putting this in, I'd need to hear some kind of a reason why a not-yet-published (out of continuity, right? It's in all-star?) Batman story rates. This isn't 'press-releas-opedia'. :-) Simnel 19:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's my opinion that it DOESN'T rate a mention, any more than we specifically mention any 'batman fights nazis' issues from the early 40s, or 'batman fights commies' in the 50s and 60s, or... uh... batman fights hippies? from the 70s? I'm running out of generational terrors here :-). However, I will READILY admit that I am extremely biased against Miller and I think this is ridiculously sensationalist. But I do think we should do our best to keep the page from becoming 'Batman News'... I really feel like it's becoming a real encyclopedia article, something which offers a critical view of Batman's history. So I'll say two more things: First, while I'm strongly against this, it's not MY article... just because I yell loudest doesn't mean I should get my way :-). Post the question on the talk page; if more people are for than against, I'll concede the point. Second, while I am loathe to do ANYTHING to expand this whale of an article, if you could find a clever way to fit in all the stuff I mentioned, maybe a new section mentioning how this is an extension of the way superheroes ALWAYS get pitted against whatever the ill of the moment, I think that would work much better. Simnel 22:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for helping improve the article on WonderCon. To answer your question, I used the program book from this year's convention for the history.

Edit summaries

I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Rogerthat: I think it might behoove those people who seem to invest so much stock in edit summaries to mention it on people's talk pages when they stumble across users not using edit summaries, I know I've done that in the past. A gentle prod early on might stop the issue being a contentious obstacle when they get here..

Well, I bug people all the time about that :) I even have a bot now in testing, which goes to the recent changes, fishes a scoop of edits, checks the edit summary usage of people, and bugs those having under 50%. :) Soon will run that regularly.

The only problem is that there are just so many users, can't educate all of them, you know. :) By the way, I think that opposing per lack of edit summaries is indeed a bit silly, but it does serve as a good preemtive measure. Plenty of users stumble onto the RfA page, so they will know that edit summaries are important indeed. :)

You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My Bloody Valentine

I noticed that you're expanding the MBV article. I started a draft (User:ShaneCavanaugh/My_Bloody_Valentine) but haven't had time to complete it. Take a look for any ideas if you like. I tried to keep track of my references as best I could. If you're already finished, that's even better as I can just fill in details you might have missed. — ShaneCavanaugh 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Colm O'Ciosoig

There is a website out there somewhere that lists all the events in pop-music history (prominently births) through time. I don't remember the site address, and I'm in no position to find it now, but I can get it to you on Monday. I think I just typed "Colm O'Ciosoig" +"born in" into Google and it popped up. Remove it for now and I'll source it on Monday, if thats ok? Jdcooper 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes. Johnleemk | Talk 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Condolences

I'm sorry about that. I think you'd be a good admin. Half the admins we've got now fail to meet the standards that were expected of you.

Ta, but I'm not incredibly surprised. What surprised me was that it was a guy who apparently held a grudge from an incident I didn't even remember that was a large part of what did for me.

Thanks for the thought tho. - SoM 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

I have some acquaintance with fair use law, but I'm unfamiliar with the "no better image" aspect (per the Typhoid Mary debate). Can you fill me in what that's about? Nareek 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that if a better image can be used, either one which is free of copyright or one for which a better fair use rationale exists, we are to use that. I hope that helps. Hiding talk 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That does make sense, thanks. I mistakenly thought you meant that a better-quality image was more likely to be fair use. Nareek 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please mediate

RJII is consistently removing the consensus version from anarchism, without any coherent reason. The consensus was agree to by 3 other editors (CJames, me and AaronS). Infinity0 talk 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity is wrong. No one agrees with what he is saying. Can you lock the page, so this can be sorted out? Thanks. RJII 18:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic case closed

A final decision has been made in this case and it has been closed. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


The site is vanity. Let me look into the creator a bit more. Phil Sandifer 19:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jake Rahn

You probably saved some poor guy named Jake Rahn at least a few moments of discomfort by making the call to delete. Thanks for doing the right thing :) — User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Oh right. Thank you. -Splashtalk 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2's blankings

Apparently WP suffered a few database failures which caused the bot to incorrectly read and misclasify some pages, the bot has been stopped in the meantime while we look at the code to figure out how to solve this problem. Sorry about that -- Tawker 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gracious thank you

I'm touched and grateful both for your help and your example these many months, and your patience as I navigate the labyrinth of Wiki policies, templates and short-cuts. Recognition from one's peers, from a "nice work, laddie" to a symbol for others to see on one's page, well, it all helps make the volunteerism worthwhile. Thank you again — Tenebrae 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Hiding. Thank you for the welcome back. Hope you are doing well also. Maurreen 07:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Hi there. Just a note that the template you want for the above article is {{Delrev}}, not {{Drv}}. The latter is meant to be placed on the (last) AFD page of the article under discussion at the Review. The talk pages of the templates bear more information. Very kind regards — Encephalon 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Hiding, I should have mentioned earlier that there's been some talk here about this. Cheers — Encephalon 10:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Julian Darius

Kill them both - Darius has self-published nine books, has one academic publication, which is an article in a bound collection. Nothing he has done has reached any significant level of notability or attention in the field, and his website contains numerous claims that wander from the merely self-aggrandizing to the actually misleading. Maybe when he puts out a real book, but for now, no. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Baseless accusation against me

You have accused me of needlessly reverting edits, without bothering to document where I may have done this; and you have suggested that a comment made on a talk page is an "edit." Presumably, this is in response to Midgley's recent hobby of complaining about me to every admin he could find. Please retract your accusations and apologize immediately. --Leifern 23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Deleting out questions made on a user talk page is, as you know, considered a hostile act in WP etiquette; and in this case the question related not to content disputes but to Midgley's complaints about me to various admins, without the courtesy of informing me so I can defend myself. As for things I write that might inflame him, it appears that he is angry these days because I have assembled a list of all his accusations and defended myself against them here: User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley. He apparently considers this an "attack page." --Leifern 12:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Response from my talk page

All right. You're right. I guess that I do have a few copyright violations on my site. The Yukon Song was originally posted as simply text, but I just happened to find the picture on another website, and thought it would look nicer. I'm sorry for contesting you so much, and for any rudeness. Please understand that I do not have any bad intentions, and that I am not attempting to violate copyright. If you would be so kind, would you let me know how to make my site legal? I really want to keep the interviews on, but I can add a link to the official site for one of them. Thank you. - Mike (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention. To my knowledge, the Honk magazine interview is public domain, as it as conducted over twety years ago, and the periodical itself ceased publication in the late 1980's. I'm not sure about the one from Comics Journal though, since the magazine is still being published, but it was printed 17 years ago. - Mike (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. If I had a disclaimer for the interviews, would I then be okay, or would it still be a problem? Also, is a text version of The Yukon Song allowed, as that is how it was originally on that page? - Mike (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link to my site from the article. The main reason I am asking for copyright advice is not to necessarily get a link from WP, but also so that I do not run into trouble if the copyright holders happen to come accross my site. Maybe someday, I'll add it back, but for now, I'll let it be. I acctually cleaned out the links section, and the only fan sites there now are Calvin and Hobbes Hideout, Magic on Paper, and the Jumpstation. Does that sound good to you? Thanks. - Mike (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is where the confusion is coming from. In the United States they are a little bit more lenient on this kind of stuff. I'm almost positive that old magazine interviews are allowed to be used, on the grounds that the magazine isn't selling anymore. In fact, I have seen on another C&H site that they aquired it through a public domain office. Posting a small amount comics (@5-10) is, I believe legal too, as long as you don't go overboard, and you use it for discussion purposes. However, having a large collection on your site in without a doubt violation. Sorry for all the ranting. - Mike (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my sencre apologies. I did not realize that it was vandalism to remove a finished discussion from a talk page. I just did not want to waste space. - Mike (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


hi, why have you deleted me? --Blisz 12:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Moomin comic strip author, Tove Jansson

Hi Hiding, this question is about the above person. There was a question about this author/artist raised on her talk page a while back. Since you said there that you'd get back with the answer in a few days, and it's been about 3 months, I'd like to at least ask you if you were able to find the answer or not.
If you weren't, I'll go and look for it myself.
To clarify, the question was, "Was Tove Jansson clearly homosexual or not?"

Much appreciated, --Zaorish 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this minor bit of help. ^_^ --Zaorish 11:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Will you please block this IP Address?

THis person has blanked the Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes page five times within a short period of time. The IP is - Mike (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd say a semi protection is in order, as s/he did it agian several times today. - Mike (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. - Mike (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Hey thanks for taking care of the archiving there on MfD. Perhaps you can help me be clearer on the instructions on the page, which read "After 8 days please remove a day's closed discussions from this page and place it in the relevant archive, creating a dated section if necessary." My understanding was that that it was saying that discussions should be closed after 8 days, then moved to the closed section for 8 more days. I've been sitting here staring at that this week trying to figure out if I was mis-reading that or not, and if all it was saying was that stuff could be archived after just the 8 days of being an active discussion. I'm a little new to maintaining MfD so I wasn't really sure. Second, I didn't intend the dating notices as instruction creep, it was mainly just something I'd added to help myself to not have to mentally add out 16 days from a given date all the time (unless it turns out I was wrong on that to begin with). Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


That took me a little by surprise. I haven't given it any particular thought (before getting your message, anyway) because it can be so hard to gauge where the community is leaning on this at any given time. I've also only 10 months editing and 7 months adminning and I'd have to defend what might appear as overeagerness. (I imagine I've upset some people on the way, too.) Perhaps I could think about it if I let a little more time drift by. I'm pleasantly surprised that someone should enquire of me on the topic, though. It might be interesting to see how Zscout370's RfB goes...there are fewer than usual "too many" comments and people do seem more willing than before to think more widely. -Splashtalk 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


FYI, I DID NOT ADD the link to my SD site! It's been up for months, and I simply updated it when it moved to a new URL. I added it back because I felt your removal of it was unjustified. Policy allows linking to a major fan site. - Mike (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary by user:Andries

I always thought that edit summaries were not important for talk pages, but I guess I was wrong. Andries 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Hiding - When I compare the tenor of my last two comments [6] [7] with that of your last two [8] [9] I see I have much to learn. The incredible stability of the website guidelines following your re-write speaks to what an excellent editor you are far better I'm able to. So thanks.
brenneman{L} 00:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much!, but...

Hi Hiding,

I'm honored by the offer from an admin I highly respect, but I have no wish to be an admin. I have always seen myself as the perfect lackey, providing "support staff" for you fine folks who make the hard choices around here. :) I don't have the time to give the site my best efforts, so I consider myself unworthy of the shiny buttons. Besides, I have had polite but firm disagreements in the past with several vocal members of the community, and I have no wish to incite the inevitable drama that I foresee such an occasion would produce. I'll always remember your kindness in asking, but I'm happy as a user. :) One the other hand, if you ever have a task fit for a lackey, this admiring one is available. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I have a favour to ask. Me and one or two other editors are having some trouble with User:RJII over on An Anarchist FAQ. He keeps inserting POV into the article. Could you come and mediate as a neutral party?

I don't know what else to do. I tried to report him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_disruptive_and_POV_editing but then I foudn out that he had already reported me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:infinity0, including making personal attacks and lying about what I have done and the current consensus. I think his behaviour is completely out of order, but so far it has been an hour and no admin has responded. Thanks. :( -- infinity0 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Anti-heroes list

I understand your point about this category being vague, so I propose a compromise: Including a list of qualities in a fictional character that conform with the definition of an antihero put out in wikipedia's own article on the subject. Sound good? --Treybien 22:20, June 11 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, I want to thank you for having faith and helping me over the past day. I'm indebted, and appreciate it a lot. Again, thanks! -- infinity0 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to this page where deemed personal attacks...

Given the behaviour of that clacque, this may turn into a job ... I wonder if you would care to take note of User:Whaleto's behaviour immediately after returning from a 24 hour block for inivility?. Midgley 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I think you might have been a bit hasty tagging this historical; but I agree the tide is against it. For what it's worth I'm on your side here. It rankles that notability is not a strict criterion for inclusion.

I think for one, you need to use the word "notability"; it's accepted as the word that points to the concept, whatever quibble you might be able to raise in favor of "significance". For two, you need to realize that this is a hot-button issue; it doesn't take a genius to interpret any notability proposal as an attack against his beloved cruft. For three, I suggest you gather together a small working group and draft the proposal with plenty of group input: make sure it's really ready to roll out with significant support.

If you want to put in some effort here, let me know. John Reid 05:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

copied from User talk:John Reid:

Okay, I've moved the page to Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal, noted that at the pump and hope a working party will build. I tagged it as historical because there was no-one who turned up and supported the proposal. Some show of support would have helped really, it appeared to me I was fighting as one man. I recognise it will attract criticism, even as basic as it is at present, but it's hard to move forward if all the supporters remain silent. Hiding talk 08:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a move is enough/wise at this point. Perhaps you need to recruit the working party first, then write the proposal, then throw it out for general comment. John Reid 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello, I just encountered your proposal and I wanted to stop by to say that I support your overall goal. When I have more time, I'll read the proposal more carefully and comment more specifically. Johntex\talk 11:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • John, if you want to take it forward your own way, let me know, I'll happily bow out. Hiding talk 09:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's your ball; run with it. Please accept my comment in the helpful spirit in which it's intended: You may get more done if you're more open to wider input. It's always tempting to take any criticism as a signal to pass the ball but I think it's better to hang on with one hand while putting the other to an ear. In this case (to beat the analogy for all it's worth) you might like to retreat to the locker room after a tough first half and discuss your playbook while the band is killing Sousa. Second half could be a turnaround.

By the way, I'd really appreciate it if I didn't have to copy your comments back to this page. After all, if we split the conversation between two pages then nobody else can understand what's going on without making an extra effort. John Reid 17:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to reply at a user's talk page, I did mean to get round to adding a notice to that effect here, but never did, it seems. That's just the way people I've interacted with have done it, sorry. As to the analogy, I would have been sent off for handball, which may not be too far from the truth. :) Hiding talk 09:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Help! I Can't Log In!

I'm in a bit of a bind and as a newbie, I've no idea what to do. Perhaps you can help.

I created a Wikipedia account as "OldSkoolGeek" (previously did edits as anonymously) and now not only did I forget my password, I didn't have the opportunity to put in an e-mail address for my profile so I can't e-mail a reminder to myself!

Is there any way to salvage the situation? I rather like my chosen nom de Wiki and am quite loath to give it up. If you like, you can e-mail mail me at xSASHAx (at) hotmail (dot) com.

Thank you!

As luck would have it, I actually was able to piece together my password so "OldSkoolGeek is now live again.
Thank you very much for offering to help. I really, really appreciate it. OldSkoolGeek 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A help question

Hi; I'd like to start an RfC on RJII based on his refusal to respond to criticism. I am the only editor currently engaged in conflict with him, though, so that doesn't meet the two-person requirement. What are the other options? -- infinity0 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ally, Ally, Oxen Free!

(Or maybe that kids'-game line isn't used across the pond?)

Hey there. Here's a cc of my Ally Sloper's Half Holiday discussion:

Hiya, Hiding. All that's cool, and thanks for the explanation that delves into our famous "two countries divided by a common language"! Hope all the details and illustrations I've added have helped to flesh out this and the Ally Sloper article itself.
I'd only suggest using a cap after a colon if what follows is a complete sentence. Otherwise, you don't know if you're started an aside that references antecedents in the previous part, or if you're heading into a related thought with a subject and verb of its own. Actually, the least confusing thing if what follows is a complete sentence may be to use a period rather than a colon.
The only thing I'm having trouble with is the passive-voice phrase "can legitimately claim to be the first" etc., since the passive voice eschews a source and lends itself to vague claims. Is it the first, or is there reasonable doubt? If a couple of credible authorities/historians can say, "Yes, it's definitely the first", let's say it. If there's doubt, it's better to say something like, "Some authorities contend it is the first", or "Some historians believe it is the first", or, my favorite, "Comics historians so-and-so and so-and-so cite it was the first". See what I'm getting
Let me know what you think of the added detail. All the best to ya, mate! -- Tenebrae 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrote back to you on the Half Holiday page. Hope it's food for thought. Talk with you in a few days! -- Tenebrae 19:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Hiding. Appreciate your cogent and fair arguments at the IfD for That Image, and also your turnaround. Anyway, its gone now, by fiat, which is probably just as well, so your letter to the board is moot.

Anyway, here's how you can do a good deed for penance. Editor User:Dknights411 has my special sympathy because, while trying to build articles on the NBA, was attacked by a demented and relentless vandal at 1998-99 NBA season, which is not exactly the kind of article that you would expect would have to be protected, but it was. Anyway, completely unrelated to that, he is being asked to remove the small logos of the NBA teams from the standings list.

Now, it seems to me, if anything is fair use, team logos in this use would be. The use is trivial (but useful), the teams have more or less de facto approved their use in this manner, and the teams have more or less (I think) released their use for simple promotional uses like this. But all that's just my guess.

Anyway, Since you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable about fair use, could you take a look at this, and adjudicate between Dknights and User:Ed g2s? Thanks! Herostratus 00:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No, that's fine, the truth is the truth, just wanted to check. Appreciate your help. Herostratus 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Korn's Rfc

Hi, Hiding, do you think that you would be able to create a new page where discussion could take place, but not baout whether Sam was in the right or wrong, as there clearly is no consensus either way, but what Wikipedia's view should be on such images. If we could put a link on the Community Portal to get more people involved in the discussion so that we don't get the same situation happening again, where an admin get accused of abuse of powers. --Wisd e n17 11:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have access to the deleted page, in order to transfer a number of the comments across to a new discussion, as a lot of them were not particulary relevent to the Rfc, in that they were more about Policy than about Sam's actions. --Wisd e n17 14:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks I didn't know it had been moved there. I'll get on putting a link etc. Village Pump. --Wisd e n17 14:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


I rm the portals proposal from {{cent}}. HidingHiding, I'd like you to consider this a favor. You need to spearhead the notability initiative; it's a critical issue, very important. That will take up all the time and effort you can give to it. Portals aren't drawing much interest right now and maybe that's okay. We'd like to keep cent short and targeted to active issues. John Reid 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not very happy about this. The portals proposal looks acceptable, and I was just about to implement it. I'm also not sure who the "we" is in the last sentence, I don't recall there ever being any problem with {{cent}} before. Hiding talk 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, it's quite all right if you want to reinsert Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. I don't think it's good judgement but I won't stand in your way. It's not okay that you should edit the log in the way that you have. For good or bad, I did rm that line; you chose to reinsert. I don't fight about things like this; I'd like you to do the correct thing: restore my signed edit to its original state and note your edit of the template in the log in a new section with the correct date. Thank you.

Meanwhile, let's try to be a bit more direct with our edit sums. It's less than forthcoming to say removing an incorrect statement; it might be better to say restoring Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. If you feel you need to justify your action, that's what the log page is for. Personally, I don't think there's any need to squabble over it. I certainly would not challenge your reinsertion -- but on the other hand, I would never be distracted by a misleading edit sum, either.

Who is "we"? I don't think there's a "problem" with {cent} -- and I think we all would like it that way. You're included. John Reid 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, do you think you can get on #wikipedia just around 0100 GMT, in about 2 hours or so? I'd like to chat. John Reid 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No chance, I'm in GMT, and I should be in bed now, I'm just killing time until midnight at this point. That's way too late for me, sorry. Hiding talk 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Hiding - thanks for the comments. I can see why a wikilink within a ref ought to be retained. As for wikilinking each term once per section, sounds a bit bogus to me, conflicts with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked - that said, they are only guidelines, and if it helps readability then we should repeat the wikilinks I guess. --Oscarthecat Flag of the United Kingdom.svg 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Darwins Rottweiler

Sorry for wasting time bout that, I totally jumped the gun--KaptKos 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Toolbar

In response to:

You recommended the wiki toolbar over at the village pump. I wonder if you can help me, I downloaded it after your comment, and on the format button the no wiki parsing doesn't work, nor do user defined formats I've tried adding. I assume that I alter the text <format>SELECTION</format> to read [1], and then when I click that it should insert [2] into the window. I'm no programmer, just an average joe, so I apologise if I'm getting something simple wrong. I also apologise if you, too, are an average joe.

I'm not really a great programmer either, but I know what you mean. I'm not sure why the options on the formatting menu are checked and unchecked. The way I use it is to highlight the text in the text box, then go to the toolbar and click the option I want, which usually seems to work. I'm afraid that's about all the help I can give you. --Mets501 talk 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but...

Hi Hiding,

You are quite correct. However, that issue arose in the DRV discussion, and the consensus was to keep the cross-space link as an exception, in the manner of WP:V,... WP:foo... which redirects are also in the article space, strictly speaking. The result of keeping the redirect, but redirecting to nothing, is absurd. Either keep the redirect as an exception and let it do its job, or delete it. As I said, last I read the discussion, consensus was for the former; but, in any event, the present result (keep, but render useless) is contradictory. See what I mean? Best wishes, Xoloz 15:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries. :) In almost any other circumstances, your superpowers would have been very helpful. I don't mind when smart people interfere! Best wishes, Xoloz 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!
Hello Hiding/Archive 2006. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili 說嗎?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (third nomination)

I deleted it because we already had three strong/speedy keep votes, and from what I read, a bad faith nomination. As you could see from the votes given, just because someone doesn't want to deal with cleaning up vandalism doesn't mean the article should be deleted. It's already had two previous nominations, the last only two months ago. As Drini replied on my talk page, "Adolf Hitler article gets vandalized often. Should we delete it because someone inserts vandalism?" If you want, you can re-open the AfD for it's full length, I won't object, but that is my reasoning for deleting it when and how I did. FireFoxT [21:10, 11 April 2006]

I never said we were talking about Adolf Hitler and don't want to get into an arguement with you about it. But, I am sticking to my desicion to close it when I did. Additionally, I don't think the amount of time an AfD has been open plays a huge part on when an AfD is closed. In my opinion, when there is a strong/obvious concensus to the debate (especially if the votes are by experienced and trusted editors), it can be closed as early as one likes. Look at those three keep votes on the AfD. They all suggest (in my opinion) that the nomination was bad faith and made with wrong reasoning, so why not close the debate? As I said, reopen it if you want. I won't object. FireFoxT [21:31, 11 April 2006]
Look, sorry I haven't got time to write a lengthy reply. I apologise for closing it when I did, perhaps it was too early. As a quick reply to what you brought up on my talk page. Firstly, I did not say the time an AfD is open does not matter, I said it doesn't play a huge part in when it is closed. I don't see in any way how I have abused the system, if you want to point some details out I'd be happy to listen and improve on that. I do believe there was an obvious concensus in the debate - we had three speedy keep votes. I've seen many AfDs been closed before with only 1 speedy vote, look through the AfD logs and you will probably find one soon enough. What would I have done if the first three votes were speedy delete? Well are we talking about this very article still, or more in general. If we're talking about this article, then of course not, because I looked at the article myself and would have seen it was not fit for deletion, if you get what I mean. If we're talking generally, then it wholly depends on the article in question. I think most people who look at the AfD would know why I closed it as speedy keep, but I will be more careful to explain in future, may I come accross any controversial voting. I normally explain why I am closing as I am when I close more controversial or sock-ridden AfDs, but I didn't find this controversial so didn't see the need. Bad faith? Ok, maybe not bad faith, but mistaken at least. A lot of the reasons written out in the (I must say well thought out and well detailed) nomination, were unfortunately a little askew. Finally, I have put the article back up for AfD, reopened the discussion, so now everyone is happy and we can get a full concensus. You'll have to wait about 12 hours for my next response if you reply to me, because it's late and I am going to bed now. Goodnight, regards, FireFoxT [21:56, 11 April 2006]
Don't worry, I totally understand what you're trying to say and apologise for closing too early. Judging by the new votes, others (Zetawoof) seem to agree that concensus had already been established but I see your point, and it's no problem. FireFoxT [08:40, 12 April 2006]
It's no problem, at least we are sure now that the concensus was to keep the article. I'm going to close the AfD in a minute, and then forget about the whole thing :) Cheers, FireFoxT [18:40, 12 April 2006]

Your reply

Thank you very much for your comments... yeah, I'm starting to realize that I was displaying most of the traits that I despise seeing in admins, and I've come to the conclusion that I would have likely voted "oppose" to my RFA if it hadn't been my own. Thanks, and we'll see how the next month or two goes--should be fun. Happy editing! Matt Yeager (Talk?) 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor alteration of 'Richey James Edwards' page.

Hi - I noticed you undid my minor revision of the Richey James Edwards page. I had changed the description of 'Catcher In The Rye' from a 'classic' to a 'work of genius'. I attempted this change out of respect to Salinger, who has specifically requested that critics, etc, refrain from referring to the work by the word 'classic'. No biggie I guess.

My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 09:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Restore the main portal of Malaysian expressway system

Actually I am very interest about roads, expressway and highways in Malaysia. Many highways that I used it for researching. Hiding, please restore this portal about expressway in Malaysia. Thank you! - (Aiman Ab Majid - 15 April 2006)


Ta. - SoM 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


I updated the page based on your criticism. See talk page. Thanks for discussing this, --Urthogie 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A pattern

Looking at this [10] it occurs to me that it is not just disruption, but from almost the start, to the end, attacks on me including encouraging others to have a go. It really doesn't look like any sort of effort at building an encyclopaedia. You get it presented to you because two of them impinge on your kind effort to determine what a dispute might be. Midgley 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is now an RFC, I wonder if you might look at it? Midgley 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD Spam

There seems to be some, err, confusion as to what constitutes a precendent here and I'd like some wider input. You seem sensible, so you get spammed: There is no justice. Anyway, I'd like to hear a better reason for keeping things than "I've convinced a few other people to do so."

brenneman{L} 05:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Civil War speculations?

Hi there, Hiding. Could you please take a look at Civil War talk page? Am I confused? Aren't those personal interpretations and therefore speculation? I'm adopting a neutral point of view. I'm for waiting until the comic is out. Regards — Lesfer (talk/@) 14:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good eye

...on the Graphic novel page. Nice catch of that linkspam.

Hope things are going well with you. Things have been too hectic lately for me to do much deep research, but I did add a word to Ally Sloper's Half Holiday — take a look, see what you think, and BTW, kudos on your excellent work and clear writing on that and Ally Sloper — and I just wrote a quick entry on comics artist Dick Rockwell, since it came to my attention he died last week. Also, it looks like another volunteer or two is helping us with the Inkpot Award, so I'm feeling pretty good about Comics Project articles lately. Anyway, just wanted to say hi. Best wishes, Tenebrae 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In responce to your note...

Yes, I do think someone should mediate the issue. I requested for mediation back in February, and it was accepted. Nobody took the case, and it was later canceled by the mediation committee because they thought that I had become inactive. We do need mediation. 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To note that something can be considered vandalism, you should at least mention that you understand there was no intent, and that the grounds of vandalism is shaky to begin with. The way you stated it to me, you made it seem as if I was a vandal, a persistant one, and that I would be banned within the next 24 hours if I continued to do the same thing. You need to mention to the person that the grounds are shaky, that you know there is no intent, and that you are not going to file it against them because the is no intent. Otherwise, you will get more people like me who accuse you of abuse of power. 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Comic Strips

Sir, I have looked over your page and was not previously aware of how highly placed you are. My congratulations on having achieved a position of trust and responsibility with the organization. Thank you for all of your work to date. Earlier in the week, you had mentioned that you would consider splitting the page of the list of comic strips so that it could comply with the wikipedia lenghth suggestions. I am completely incompetent in this field, and would welcome someone as experienced as you addressing the matter. Thank you for all you have done and will continue to do with the wikipedia.Badbilltucker 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How to do RFC

Yr hmble and Obd't srvnt presents for yr consideration. Feel like reading and ripping it? Please. Midgley 14:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Comic covers

Based on Kelly Martin's statement "A cover image should only be used to illustrate an article about that issue. Do not use a full cover image to illustrate an article about a character." [11], should we edit Template:Comiccover in order to remove the line saying that in fact we can use comic covers to illustrate "the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question"? — Lesfer (talk/@) 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It helped a lot. Thanks for the explanation :) — Lesfer (talk/@) 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Didn't know you'd made Admin. Good show! You're shouldering a lot of volunteer work, so best wishes and Godspeed! -- Tenebrae 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Great to hear from you! I'll take a look at Portal:Comics. (Portal:Comics? CD-ROM? I can't keep up with the Wiki empire!) Best wishes, --Tenebrae 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. — Just saw Portal:Comics. This is great! Thanks for the head's-up, and I've bookmarked it for future going-to. Cheers! Tenebrae 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

DC Universe

Thanks for the info about the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics information. It's not really my cup of tea since it is more for comic knowledge relative to the comic buyer. I'm just playing lightly with the idea of something more like a DC Encyclopedia. In this, we could learn about the various buildings within Gotham City, jewelry used, yadda-yadda. You get the idea. As for copying articles that already exist, yes, I'm aware. I'm just doing that temporarily until I can change it more into a formal Encyclopedia format instead of a general sort of article. Any ideas or changes would be grateful. QuintusCinna 3 May 2006

Picking your brain

Just noticed that this guy quietly moved Shikari to Shikari Lonestar when I was on WikiBreak back in January so he could insert his pet Hindi dicdef on the page, linking to a redirect (which I only noticed there because an anon's stuck a non-notable band link on the page). Given the way move requests I've been involved with seem to have gone of late, and the reasoning he's used is superfically attractive (although the character never used her full name in-comic, it was only used in a Handbook-style thing which I thought involved a misreading - although I used it on the page for completeness - so it's not obvious), I have no idea what to do. Any suggestions?

PS - I replied at Image talk:Portalcomics.png, but I'm not sure what to do. PPS - Your archive links at the top of the page are broken - you've used backslashes in the actual page titles (e.g. User talk:Hiding/Archive 4), but the links are to the forward-slash versions. - SoM 18:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just sent Shikari to AfD. Even tho AFD rarely achieves anything, it seemed like the most sensible of the options. If you want to weigh in to mention the other stuff, please do so - but I don't think it matters much until the Bollywood film, etc actually get articles.
I'll more than likely let the afd play out without my input, unless you specifically want/need it. Hiding Talk 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I still have no idea what to do about Image:Portalcomics.png. If you think we'd get the interest required to have a contest, I have no objection, but I strongly suspect that nothing would happen.
I'll live with yours for now. It's a wiki, at the end of the day. Worst comes to the worst, I'll revert you when you're not looking. :) I'll get round to talking about this at WP:COMIC soon. Hiding Talk 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And, User talk:Hiding/Archive 4, which is what the link at the top of this page, goes to a blank page for me (not a redirect, a "this page does not exist" page). User talk:Hiding/Archive 4 works, but it's not what's linked. Ditto the other archive links - SoM 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
That's wierd. Honestly, at my end it's [[User talk:Hiding\Archive 4|Archive 4]], straight up, I've just cut and pasted. I've even fired up IE and that shows the links as being right. We're talking about the archive links at the top of this page, yes? Maybe there's a problem your end? Hiding Talk 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Figured it out - yeah, it's my end - I've got the "Slashy" Firefox extension installed - which reverses backslashes in links because 99% of the time they're in error on the web. (How come you used backslashes anyway?) - SoM 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. I wasn't aware I had until you pointed it out. At some point I'll move them and sort it all out. I copied all the rest from the first one, which I guess I just clean and simple cocked up. Hiding Talk 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ahahah well done

lol. --Syrthiss 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Hiding. Well done indeed.;-) Say, I just realized that you didn't record your support for Xoloz in the Support section, so I made a note to the bureaucrat to watch out for that when closing. Hope this is ok.:-) Cheers — Encephalon 12:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Warm thanks

Thanks Hiding,

By all rights, you should have been my principal nominator, since you were the first to ask, but it took quite a long time to wear my obstinacy down: secretly, no matter what RfA says, I know I'm too dumb for the job! ;) As I look to make sense of this complex wiki-world, your example will be my guide. Your kind words in supporting me meant a great deal, not in the least because we inhabit the same dark corners of the wiki that others miss -- you've probably seen me make more mistakes than anyone at Wikipedia, so I am honored and amazed to have your confidence. I will do my best to make you proud, but I am sure you'll have to wiki-wiffle bat me every now and then. Goodness knows, I need the help; I will likely rely on your superb abilities in my most trying moments. The benefit for you is that I stand ready to perform any menial work that needs doing! :) Your servant, Xoloz 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

David Nalbandian

No fair use rationale was provided for the image. What say you, Hiding? Stanley011 23:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just deal with the issue and stop trying to guess my motivations. I refer you to wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. Stanley011 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Template:Fairuse rationale needed suggests that fair use images uploaded after 4 May 2006 are supposed to have rationales. For this, I would like to ask you why you removed Fairuse rationale needed|month=May|day=18|year=2006 from Image:Mergelogosmall.JPG while it was uploaded on 18 May 2006.--Jusjih 07:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:logo does say: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Therefore, I disagree that my use of the template was incorrect while the template still asks the uploader to add a detailed fair use rationale. If you want to consider my action incorrect you have to blame Template:logo instead.
I have seen French Wikiquote closed for major copyright problems. Please look at the template carefully and take copyright matters very seriously if you do not want the same closure happening to English Wikipedia. Should it ever happen, it will hurt us very hard.--Jusjih 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course I didn't mean to suggest that you don't take copyright violation seriously, but how about this sentence at Template:Logo: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information"? I would not tag possible deletion if that sentence were not there.--Jusjih 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hiding

I've offered to mediate here if you'd be amenable to it. There's a section cooking on my talk already. - brenneman{L} 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Extinctioners Page

Hey thanks for taking an interest in my Extinctioners page, please tell me what you think and what improvements you would suggest, let me know (in my discussion page) thanks

Jason Todd

Were my edits really that bad? Did I destroy other people's work, or did I do what I intended to do: streamline an awkward section of text, making it have a more NPOV like was asked for on the talk page? Please advise. I'm sick of the revert war. I just found Cheesenw's comments and actions very insulting. --Chris Griswold 09:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comics template

What about using User:Hiding/X2?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Administrators open to recall

SPAM WARNING - quasi form letter follows! (#6)
I'm attempting to open the biggest can of worms ever. Your understanding of policy is excellent, and you seem to be a good judge of what will fly and what won't. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on the category I've just created.
brenneman {L} 07:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Doom Patrol pictures

So what do I do? The pictures were avaliable for anyone, in the upload page was stated that were owned by DC comics as a comic single panel, and I didn't include them in any article. I hope that you saved the text code of my contribution, because I won't write it whole again, nor I will make a new list. KetinPorta 13:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My major concern is that we are losing the oportunity if showing grafically the characters that the article is exposing. How is the proceding of all the others comics images that I have seen in wikipedia? KetinPorta 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Now I see your point. The problem is that I lack the editing skills, and I would most surely destroy the article instead of enhance it. KetinPorta 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics Policy Page

We have previously discussed my wanting to put up a policy page for Wikiproject Comics. My problem was that the main page just looked like an impenetrable wall of text. I've since reorganized the main WikiProject Comics page, as well as the templates page. Additionally, I have added spoiler templates to the templates page. Doing all of this, as well as looking to the WikiProject talk page has made what I want to do clear: I am going to go through the talk page archives and create a list of guidelines agreed-upon by consensus. If need be, I will summarize arguments. There are so many people editing these articles, with so many ideas about how to do that. A page like this might make it easier for an editor to have the same editing goals as the project at large. Let me know what you think.--Chris Griswold 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

Legobrick.pngWe are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Hiding, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! (Note, the advert for accountability of course doesn't apply to you since you've taken the plunge! I may crib your notice box if you don't mind... ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Black Flame

Hi, as you added the clean up tag to the Black Flame entry I thought I'd drop a quick note in to say I've fiddled with it and expanded it (as part of my ongoing 2000 AD efforts) and I was wondering what else you thought was needed for this round of the clean up - I dropped a note in to the talk page so if there is anything you can drop it in there. (Emperor 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

X-Men: The Last Stand

Hiya, Hiding. Things are getting very heated at Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand, with users EVula and Facto in particular throwing insults, accusations, and threats. I've initiated a mediation with the latter, but I'm not asking you to get involved. I just thought it might be helpful for an Admin to step in to the movie's talk page with a gentle reminder that we all need to be civil and assume good faith.

If I'm stepping over a line, it's purely from my own ignorance, and let my apologize in advance.

Hope all's going well with you. I guess you've heard about Alex Toth's passing. With kind regards, -- Tenebrae 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

S'cool. Thanks for getting back. Have a great time in the quaint countryside or, like, Portugal or something, where friends of mine from Tottingham sometimes fly to for a long weekend -- or France, or Amsterdam, or wherever since it's all close. Damn, it's cool to be European! Enjoy... - Tenebrae 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A favour (Re: X-Factor)

Someone's just (in the last twenty minutes) moved X-Factor to X-Factor (superhero) because "it isn't notable enough." From the non-standard (disambig) bit, I think it's safe to say this is not a "comics guy" - and I've just checked, he hasn't bothered fixing the redirects (including double-redirects).

Could you please move this back for the nonce, and start a WP:RM on the change? If consensus goes to move to X-Factor (comics) [itself now a double-redirect], fine, but it should be taken "properly" rather than stuck on a non-standard page from someone else's whim - especially whenhe doesn't even know how to do a move. A RM this way round will default to leaving it on the non-standard page, and I don't want to fix the redirects three times (which it would amount to if it was successfully moved back). - SoM 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the disambiguation pages for X-Factor now redirect to X Factor. Any pages specifically about the comic book that link there, should be fixed to link to X-Factor (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Animal-Vegetable-Mineral Man image

Per your stated preference, I've replied to your query on my user page. (God, that sounds pretentious and formal. Sounds like I've been possessed by a lawyer. Yeesh.) — Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I see that this has just been recreated by Treybien. Can it be speedy deleted? CovenantD 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Okily-dokily. Didn't realize the award had such a backstory to it! In any event, please know how much I respect all your efforts and all those other things I said. Keep up the good work. (And re: the commenting-out — those were just grammatical points that didn't seem worth bothering anyone with on the Talk page, though I can always move them there if you think it's worth the effort.) Thanks again, -- Tenebrae 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John  Reid 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you seem to be in charge over the Comic Portal, so perhaps you could point me in a few things. I would like to contribute to comics, but at the page of the Comic Portal i feel lost. I have some knowledge over Marvel Comics, and a few other comics but not so much as with Marvel Comics(not that I am especially knowledgeable at this). If you could send me a list of articles in need regarding Marvel Comics it would be great, also looking at the List of marvel comics characters, I saw that there are some characters missing that don't have red links, and I don't know how to create articles out of nothing and putting them in that list. If you could answer me all this if you have the time, I would appreciate it very much.--Captain ginyu 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comics terminology v. Comic book terminology

I noticed that there are two categories, Category:Comics terminology and Category:Comic book terminology. I don't really see the point of having both, and was planning to propose a category merger. But, I thought I'd check with you first (since you edited both pages recently), is there a reason these two are separated? I don't see the difference between "comics" and "comic book". --SevereTireDamage 21:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted template

I created a template against legalising Gay marriage and it has been erased 2 times by now. I received no 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Dude, you're great. (Just thought I'd use an Americanism you probably don't get much over there.) I've been to the overall site before, but not in a while, and that cartoonist-bio book is a terrific resource. Thank you for your thoughtfulness!

Couldn't help but notice the notice the hateful post above. Since when does an NPOV template belong anywhere? Imagie the irony: In the afterlife, these hate-spouting religious zealouts will be damned damn surprised to see they've been, well, damned! -- Tenebrae 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

your name

I randomly spotted your name since it had the word "block" in it. I saw you have never been blocked. Also as an admin, you have rarely ever blocked anyone (some admins block all the time and you seem to block less than most--and only one indefinite whereas it's popular to block any vandal indefinitely now so most are now always doing indefinite). DyslexicEditor 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Hiding, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

Thanks for the correction about tense. I guess I didn't understand the nature of the word "first". I thought that you could say, "George Washington is the first president of the United States." --Chris Griswold 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


I would like to ask you a favour. Could you please have a look at the talk page and history of the article on Gibraltar. Over the past few months a number of users, including myself, have been in conflict with user:Gibnews. We feel he has taken over the page as his pet project and has imposed a NPOV pro-Gibraltarian point of view. I feel his attitude and utter refusal to acheive any form of consensus is contrary to the rules of wikipedia. He accuses everyone of Spanish propaganda even on issues which are not directly related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar and reverts pretty much everything which is not written by himself. Although I am not Spanish, I sometimes wonder if I may be slightly biased towards the Spanish perspective. I do not however believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish and I try to remain as neutral as possible. I do not have a problem with Gibnew's views. I simply do not approve of his way of discarding other people's sources, opinions etc... You should perhaps consult other users for their opinions such as user:ecemaml and user:asterion.

That is why I ask you, as an English-man, to mediate or atleast give your perspective on this issue.

Please look at the talk page over the past few months. Conflict with user Gibnews seems to go a long way back.

Thankyou very much for your help. We would really appreciate it. There is nothing worse that when articles are hijacked by individuals with political agendas. --Burgas00 13:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dez Skinn

Hi Hiding

Just wanted to compliment your recent well-sourced edits to the Dez Skinn article.


Vizjim 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your interest. The portal was created because there are a vast number of LGBT-related articles on this project. The intent is to allow a "homepage" of sorts for those with an interest in LGBT articles. Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals is not a policy or a requirement - and approval there is not needed to form a portal. It was there to measure interest among potential editors. Davodd 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the intent of the portal proposal process, I am ignoring it (in re: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). The fact we have a Portal:Nintendo and a Portal:LOST with no controversy whereas Portal:LGBT is opposed only goes to show that the portal proposal process is broken, not that the viability of a portal on such a rich subject matter (LGBT studies is an accepted university subject of study) is undo-able. The rules for this particular proposal concept are broken in that they hamper the ability to use portals in their intended way. There are hundreds of LGBT-related articles scattered about Wikipedia in Entertainment, Sexuality, Politics, medical and other categories. This one subject area is one of the main reasons portals exist - to provide a one-stop-shop experience for easy reference of the user to find LGBT-related articles. Unless I am mistaken, the process of "applying" for the right to make a portal is so that unnecessary portals are not created - only to be deleted because they were ill-thought-out or patently unneeded i.e.: Portal:Butter or Portal:Halloween masks. The concept that one portal must wait until another, partially-related portal further develops is a classic example of instruction creep, which should be avoided in wiki projects. Davodd 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NNOT and undue weight

You've edited our proposal WP:NNOT in a way that I think implies that undue weight can be attributed to articles specifically about a minority subject. Could you comment on that perhaps under the header "Undue weight of separate articles" on the talk page for that proposal? Thanks. Fresheneesz 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia bad faith edit

OK, the change I made to the Libel policy was a bad faith edit and it stayed there for a day on an official wikipedia policy page. It said:

"However, please don't let the law on libel of persons discourage you from deliberately creating totally false articles about facts and theories. In fact Wikipedia policy encourages you to do this. The important things are; That you can find some sources for the fantasy, and that you didn't personally invent the falsehood."

However my point wasn't to show the limits of Wikipedia - infact it's another Wikipedia rule that you shouldn't post to make a point. The thing is, that's what I do understand Wikipedia policy to say - There is no rule that you shouldn't post in bad faith. This is what I would like to see. There's a policy to assume good faith in the other person but none to have it yourself. Why is there no policy to 'have good faith'? --Andrewrutherford 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I've noticed you take a active participation in the dealing and additions of policy pracitces. Regrading WP:MOS, I'm suggesting an note in the page of writing articles in the third person (using the player, the victim, one'. etc. ) as I've noticed its become a bit of problem lately that newer editors write prose as if in conversation with the reader ("you will get hurt", etc. ). Comments...? -ZeroTalk 08:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Responded on my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 11:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


It's no big thing :) I agree the page needs some work, but it's a beheamoth as is and I don't think splitting it out some would be a bad idea but ... that never goes anywhere :P No offense was taken at all, and I think I got a better 'big view' of things thanks to your comments. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Style book

You seem to know much more about the workings of Wikipedia than I. What is the best way for me to go about starting the WP:COMICS stylebook project as a collaborative project? If you even just want to direct me to appropriate Wikipedia resources, I would be appreciative. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Falun Gong daughter Page

There was absolutely no consensus for deletion of the page. IT is requested that the page be restored. Dilip rajeev 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, friend. It was no POV fork. It was central to the article. Research into Health benefits of Tai Chi would be central to a Tai Chi article. We were working on the page and the page was being improved continuously - I dont think it was fair to delete the page. Futher how can it be claimed "there was consensus to delte the page" arent you violating wiki policy there? It is sincerely requested that the page may please be restored. Dilip rajeev 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you dont mean to label my opinion part of some group whatever. That is you over-look all who said "Keep" and give them a label. What was POV about the research? You mean the researchers are lying? I request you to restore the page. Nobody ever wrote their POV in the article but facts/findings were reported as such. Dilip rajeev 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Friend, I really dont udnerstand what you are trying to say. Why would facts/findings of research conducted at one the nations not medical institutes be ignored? Any lawyer can "twists" policies to make a good case. Label the opinion of all editors who say its relevant as "original research".. the fork was a POV fork.. honestly none of it is a strong argument.. If reporting findings of a research is POV what is absence of POV? I request you, again, to please restore the article... Dilip rajeev 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I chucked about your word of "consensus". You belittled all the "Keep" opinion as none. I am sure some of "Keep" opinions are only policy-related. Please read the deletion discussion carefully. Please reconsider your decision. Or at least you cannot say it is a "consensus". Fnhddzs 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Research into health benefits of Falun Gong. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Fnhddzs 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability --> Significance proposal


I came across your sorta-recent Notability proposal, and in particular was interested in the idea brought up in passing of a "word shift" from notable to significant.

Back in November last year, I had been thinking along similar lines when I posted this on What Wikipedia is not, as a trial balloon:

  • While this may not be the place, I'd like to float the proposition that the word "notable" is at fault. We get tied up in the semantic construct of what it means to be "of note." It's a difficulty with strict definitionalism, whereas the meaning is what we're trying to eke out. The problem with "notable" is in it being a protean word, which neither "side" of the debate can define satisfactorily. Perhaps we need a different word altogether, that doesn't fall into the subjective morass of whether something is (or isn't) notable. I'd propose "significant" as an alternative term, as it has both a quantitative and qualitative value (e.g. a significant issue, a significant number.) One can more easily say that "X is more significant than Y", whereas one can have difficulty with the claim that "Y is more notable than Z." While it's still a subjective term — as all qualitative comparatives are — in my view, it's less restrictive and less definitionally loaded a term than the "Wikipedia:Importance" proposal. It's an established term outside Wikipedia used by educational, government, business and literary sources. See, for examples of usage:
  • USGS Significant Floods in the United States and FEMA Significant Flood Events
  • Science Fiction Book Club Most Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 50 Years
  • Naval Postgraduate School Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents
LeFlyman 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea received a couple of positive responses, but wasn't pursued. I was considering revisiting the (admittedly radical) proposal for a replacement to "notability" when I came across the "Significance" link to your own efforts. During your proposal, the discussion of the shift to significance was ended by the question of "when is something significant, but not notable?" (and vice-versa). I do think there is a delineation that can be made: all things that are significant are notable, but not all notable things are significant. By that, (for example) a publication might get listed as a notable children's book, but not be significant enough to merit a Wikipedia entry; a contestant may be noted as a third place finisher in news about the national spelling bee, but that in and of it self isn't significant enough for an article. (However, this year, Saryn Hooks also became newsworthy after being reinstated due to a judge's error.) Often, it seems to me, that "notable" is used as a stand-in for "famous", when usage of such a term would be considered non-Wikipedia-correct "POV". By the same token, any bit of trivia on a subject could be called "notable", as it has been "noted" somewhere-- although it wouldn't be thought of as significant.

I'd be happy to hear your views.

Regards, --LeflymanTalk 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic

Thanks, I knew that I had forgotten to do something. :| I'm not sure if you've seen the entire drama between those two unfold, but if you have, what's your take on it? Tito xd(?!?) 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the fight would just be taken elsewhere, so a two-week ban on all comics-related articles for both (with expiration coinciding with the List of Justice League episodes ban) is the safest solution. Both have been told repeatedly to stop their behavior, and it's time for the other remedies in the ArbCom case to begin applying. Tito xd(?!?) 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I surely wouldn't want to hog all the fun... ;) Tito xd(?!?) 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Did you happen to notice how I moved to a different comics related issue and DA followed me there, starting and almost started an edit war by editing at the same time? I also proposed to stop the edit war and wait from concensus on the matter from the wikiproject that makes the guideline for articles of the sort.

He also emptied my talkpage and insulted me. Since my probation I've never gone to his page and the only attack that slipped from me was calling him nazi one time, (like soup nazi, nazi-like, not the serious kind). A mistake I soon acknoledged. I also showed titox how he followed me to 13 out of 14 different articles I edited on Monday. On some he did edits opposing mine, and almost all were from 20 minutes form and hour straight after mine.

I neither know his edits nor follow him. If DA monitires and undo most of my edits, and wikipedia seems to be aprooving it... should I do the same?

This banning... Does it mean that I should not go there and edit, or is it supposed to be automatic?

Also I think I spend way too much time on wikipedia, can I be blocked weekdays?--T-man, the wise 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Chris Claremont

Thanks. --DrBat 22:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's harassing who? What a joke.

Thanks for your "concerned" post to my talk page. I see that T-Man can spend hours maligning me on his talk page, and this is perfectly acceptable to you as his mentor. Wonderful to know. I however spend all my time correcting his mistakes and errors, and preventing his excesses and frankly inane attemtps to create pointless cartoon wikis about TV shoes for 5-year olds, and no one does anything to support me. I complain about the defamation of my character on his page... have you looked at it lately? He obsesses about me... obsesses! And he is rude and namecalls anyone who doesn't share his unreasonable position on how articles should be written.

If you had actually checked my recent edits, you would see that I have moved on and grown up, so please don't talk to me about your mentee anymore and his debasement of the wikipedia project. He is a waste of my time and effort, as is this discussion. I leave that waste in your hands from now on. For the sake of wikipedia, however, I would hope that you have him remove the defamatory slander about me on his talk page. Dyslexic agnostic 06:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

More guiding, please

Hey, Hiding. I never asked, what am I blocked for? I just assumed I did something wrong, but I just realized I don't exactly know.

In my defense I could say I was followed to the last page in confict and therefore clashed (I was in the middle of it when DA went there, yadayada, y'know), but the proposal of stopping the edit war (I realized I that if I reverted a hundred times he'd do it a hundred and one times, but it's hard to determine whether you are in an edit war or not) to reach concensus from the wikiproject. So I was kinda bit more rational.

The other question is what to do when the block is over. DA already "followed" me there, knowing him he would also follow me if I go to other articles, but once he has done it and edited more than once he tends to get a little more "territorial" about it and his edits will tend to be bolder against mine. A guy in the wikipedia: wikiproject tv episodes, with apparent trustworthy authority said I can put the the wikiproject article the naming guideline as I suggested it, and I just did it yesterday, so I guess the BTAS episode subarticles can be named my way without the parenthesis clarification when there is no disambiguation needed... But I'm afraid the clashes will continue there and wherever I go, 5minutes to 12 hours after I edit. I don't know what to do. --T-man, the wise 02:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just readed above my comment

And Ialthou I don't think (or know if) you were appointed as my mentor. Contraire to what once wrongly stated from my gut, you have the ability to understand what I complan about. Further than that, you see the exact point in previous mistakes of mine when I went wrong. That's quite handy to avoid repeating those, so your mentoring is very welcomed.

I recently realized that avoiding adjetives it's not only a rule to write a good article, but a rule to succeed in talk pages and avoid offending people. I think the excess of adjetives I use is often interpreted as attacks by most people... Besides adjetives tend to cause reverse psicology. If I state something is black, people is going to question it and start checking if that's not actually really dark blue. But if I question its color, everybody is probably going to sceam black.--T-man, the wise 03:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

About "I must advise you to seek consensus on issues and to respect that consensus, even when you disagree with it".

I feeled weird when that happen, and din't know what to do. There are higher rank articles (the wikiprojects,t hat's where I got the tables, tags and infoboxes from) about how to do what I was doing (impliying that articles per episode was already a common thing to create) and there are already thousends of those about "more important" and "less important" TV series, so I guessed consensus from that specific episode list page wasn't really needed. I felt with such justification consensus wasn't even require. Why doing consensus about something a hundreds of lists of episodes and hihger rank pages already decided? --T-man, the wise 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, man, my bad. When I wrote the essay, I tried and tried but couldn't find who had come up with the idea originally. I'll put that in the essay right away. Matt Yeager (Talk?)

secret identity?

I don't know if that can work; there are several characters whose real names aren't 'secret identities', or they just don't have a superhero/villain alias in the first place. --DrBat 00:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thor (Marvel Comics) copyvio revert

Thanks for looking into the copyright issue on Thor (Marvel Comics). Quick question: now that you've reverted it to before User:Soujaboy's copy/paste from, is it all right if I remove the copyvio tag so we can begin updating/editting this article again? If it's still being investigated, that's fine and of course I won't touch the page until that's done, just curious. Again, thanks for looking into the problems there. -Markeer 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the rules on the Thor talk page, and setting up the temp. Once again I appreciate you taking care of all this. -Markeer 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


although I do believe consensus isn't needed since such strong guidelines back me up, and I've stated so. I never went against it. But I pushed my boundaries as much as I could. I feel some editors have problems distinguishing between not agreeing (nd stating so) with consensus and acting against it.

Another confusing issue is that I always do whatever the consensus didn't cover. For example, when the consensus seemed to be turning against ALL the episode articles, I revers SOME episode articles. then the ones that are not stubs, and so on. Still I feel like some people think speaking agains the consensus is the same as acting against it.--T-man, the wise 10:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I've been trying to informally mediate this one for a while now, since I don't have the personal investment that every other editor on the article does. I'm grateful for the assistance of another person who isn't involved on a personal and emotional level, but I have to ask why you decided to visit this article and attempt to help. Curiosity, really. We've already seen about four or five different admins wander by, try to help, get bitten (as you just did) and wander off again. I don't want you to be another casuality of the fervent belief that motivates the other editors. I appreciate your work too much ;-) CovenantD 12:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Don't hijack votes

I am very sorry and apologiz/se if I have inadvertently offended you here. I have left a reply to your post titled as above and hope you do not feel it assumes anything other than good faith.
Sincerely, David Kernow 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Have just read and responded to your recent query here. Yours, David 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid of losing the tables

If DA follows me around one more single time I'll need to re-open some tables (also cleaning it up so that the ecidence speack for itself). I'm also a little concern about some little issue. DA vandalized my page and his punishment was for only 24 hours, that's fine. But I strongly feel I've been blocked more time for smaller faults. This is very hard to explain, I find reasonable the way DA was punished (well, maybe a week would have been nicer), however his action against me was uncalled for, when the cause of some past blockings I had where a lighter effect of DA following me around. Before you editors strongly denied he was following me, and when he finally admited it then they denied to recognise it was unfear to me. Meanwhile it was kinda weird to see all the other blocked users were vandals and I was the only one banned for a "personal attack" (ignoring it was rather not that big deal, defensive and not offensive, and no striong word either). Man, I don't know what am I trying to tell you, I just thing other editors didn't se the situation as resonably as you do and I'm afraid that if I lose the table to monitor DA's stalking, the situation is going to turn bad again. I'd like to create a more objetive table, maybe develop an objetive registration system that could even help other stalked users in the future. A table where X user regiter Y user's ativities bothering him in a way admins can read it and clearly determine whether there is ir isn't talking. Ideally the description of the harassment acts should be brief, cool and not offensive to the user Y, the evidence speaking for itself, the stalkee only nominate acts as vandalims and after certain amount of evidence gathered, admins could judge for themself.--T-man, the wise 06:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hiding, for getting T-Man to remove his obsessive stockpile of vandalism against me from his talk page(s). I really appeciate it. Any efforts by the boor to obsess more by making more tables should be dealt with swiftly and harshly, imho. I therefore have no need to post further to his talk page, since my repeated efforts at niceties are lost on the ignorant. Thanks again... I will likely continue a small wikibreak. -- Dyslexic agnostic 08:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Things bothering me about the previous comment by DA:
      • Posted 2 hours right below me.
      • I therefore have no need to post (or vandalize) further to his talk page. I don't post on his page, I have no need only makes things worse. I've been asking him for months not to post in my talk page. I still bothers me a lot.
      • Attack: obsessive stockpile of vandalism against me
      • Attack: Any efforts by the boor to obsess more by making more tables should be dealt with swiftly and harshly, imho
      • Attack?: since my repeated efforts at niceties'(?) are lost on the 'ignorant. I don't know what the hey does that mean (seriously) but it sounds like an insult.
      • I will likely continue a small wikibreak Have you notice how he always take "wikibreaks" when my activity lowes.
I'll make an effort not to sound like that when describing future inconvenients with DA, as I've been doing lately. Only take in consideration that for now, I'm very upset about what I just listed--T-man, the wise 11:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

VP/T archiving bug?

Just a note, during this edit whatever you used to archive screwed up one of my comments:

It changed:
<nowiki><style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?9"; /*]]>*/</style></nowiki>
<nowiki><style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![[CDATA[*/ @import "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?9"; /*]]>*/</style></nowiki>

If it is an AWB or has some sort of tidy in it, it should probably ignore whatever is in nowiki tags. --Splarka (rant) 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh k. I thought the VD/T had automagic bot archival though ^_^. --Splarka (rant) 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Sigh* Yo. You said you'd look into protecting the [[Thor (Marvel Comics}]] article if editing to it persisted. Well, let's just say I've seen edit wars that were less active. If it's not too much trouble to take notice of this and...oh...I don't what you said you would, now is the time. ACS (Wikipedian) 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Not the ald tables, I'm talking different simpler, sharper, opinionless ones. Basically an action registry. In the past I had a hard time trying to get administrators even to beliveme I was being followed.

Let's say and average day, DA follows me to 3 diferent places and edits 9 times, the only editor ever, that actually have taken the time to explore edits in delatal and there fore would know how to spot harassment (also identifying my politic mistakes) besides you has been Josiah Rowe. Regular administrators just check an incidence page twice a week and think they know all the problem.

It is more posible that you're actually right and tables are useless, but how else could I feel safe? Remember also that as I started registing DA's edits over mine, more carefully, with less useless comments, he started to go crazy and even commited vandalism. Howcome it didn't happened when the tables were more "DA is this, DA is that, he is bad" babbling and went crazy as those started becoming all about evidence.

...Although I do think, that much info about a stalker makes me look a little like some nut. So a sandbox would probably be the solution.--T-man, the wise 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Hiding, I changed the redirects from your user and talk pages; I hope you don't mind. As you may know, in general, redirects shouldn't cross namespaces. In addition, I think that redirecting your user page and especially your talk page could be quite confusing, especially if editors with to contact you. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice break

...but please do come back - you are certainly one of the non-crazies, and I always appreciate your insights on categorization, and general good sense. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok, then I'll trust you'll keep DA from focusing on me. Actually that's closer to what I'd really like: None of us having to focus on anybody in particular.--T-man, the wise 16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An AMA request has been made involving you

This is just to notify you that this has been created: [12]. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

T-Man accusations - call for his ban

T-Man acused me of lying here. please take the appropriate action. -- Dyslexic agnostic 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He also continues to defame and harass me at User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow/Vandalism & Harassment. Please have this page REMOVED, or I will do it myself. This is intolerable. -- Dyslexic agnostic 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
DA: please keep your distance from my talk page and my sandbox. I'd also appreciate a bunch if you avoid watching my contribs. For all I care contribs lists should be only for administrators use. Unti WP realize it, I'll be registring in a very ofenseless format a list of your (very unappreciated) "monitoring" activity. It won't grow if you don't follow me anymore.
Well... he did. I never express it that way, though. Actually, I didn't think of DA, as a liar (on that specific matter) until I read the words above. Since he was told that was not proper episode article naming by experienced administrators and he later claimed there is a convention stating the opposite when there is not, then I guess that, yeah, he is a liar. then again, he said it, not me.--T-man, the wise 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Several users have a Vandalism control sandbox, I don't see why I shouldn't have. Actually, I intended the tables to be there since the begining, but since I can't work those while blocked, I made them in my talk page. I just realized today that it was vandalized by DA. While recalling events to a user that could use it to improve is not called for banning, epmtying pages and grafitty ARE called for banning. I find curious how this guy is supposed to be a lawyer and yet he makes up conventions, have trouble distinguishing whats called for banning, keep committing vandalism, insult me, yaddayadda. I mean, I guess it's possible, but I can't help but wonder what's that about, aren't lawyers supposed to be experts on rules, punishments and always saying citing and quoting the right stuff? --T-man, the wise 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


It's just that I don't think I'm violating any consensus. But I'm not going to pretend I agree with such incoherence against something already decided in wikiprojects. Actually my changes were completely accordong to that concensus. Consensus was expand info in the list first, then move to subarticles. If Gillespee took of the expansions, it means there is enough material to create a subarticle. I think CovenantD and Grisworld have become completely subjetive. If they don't want articles per episode, they should take it to the tv episode wikiproject instead of picking on a small fried.

I'm keeping the he vandalism control, you can moderate the content, but I won't go through the situation of nobody believing me I have a wikistalker again. Having evidence took me out of that situation and there is no WP convention against it.--T-man, the wise 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You can cross the content bothering you, and I promess you I'll change or take it off. But I need that page. Meet me in the middle point, please. --T-man, the wise 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just took off all the propagandistic yaping and now it's just a list of links. About 4 tims smaller. Anything else you want me to change.--T-man, the wise 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Regarding your source for the info, I'm looking at the date on it and it's dated after Wikipedia started disseminating that information. Is it not possible Wikipedia is the source for that article's content, and that it is not a reliable source? I'm not going to blind revert, but I think it's a point we need to consider here."

Good eye! I was trying to find something quickly, and I should have paid closer attention. I'm going to remove that part again and see if I can't find a more credible source. If the passage is correct, I should be able to find it on some fringe websites. Time to highten my security levels, eh? --Chuchunezumi 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm now in the border. I used the be way across it, so that's kind of an improvement, isn't it? How ever I'll keep up the behavior improvement until the tone is perfect. Your observations have been of great help, thanks.

Please keep in mind that it's not easy to keep a good tone when other users are attaking and being subetice towards my edits even if those followed the consensus (I'm talking the consesnsus in that specific page, which was expand there first then create the subpages)--T-man, the wise 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take it to mfd. It still talks all about me, completely unnecessary adn aggravating. If he removes it all, I will stay away from him, as long as he doesn't interfere with pages I work on regularly. -- Dyslexic agnostic 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Hiding - Enjoy your break. If/when you come back, I'd like to talk about the reasons you posted. No hurry. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm back. You sounded kind of disheartened by the whole thing, and I thought I might try to cheer you up. When Radiant! left, I put a note on his talk page that I think still applies. IMO Wikipedia is going through some growing pains. I don't think I've been here long enough to qualify as one the real old timers, but I suspect it's done this before as well. Wikipedia survived its growth from its beginnings as a small community where pretty much everyone actually knew everyone else to its current form where hardly anyone knows anyone else and certainly no one knows everyone. It's popular enough now that it attracts organized POV pushers in addition to garden variety assholes, of which there are certainly more than there used to be, but there are way more reasonable folks as well. It still has the same principles, so as long as there are way more reasonable people than assholes, I think things will work out OK. Some things pretty much have to change, but I think they will. If you're willing to take the long view of things, and stick around through the current transition period, I'm sure something fairly reasonable will come out on the other side. I don't know how long it might take, and there are plenty of ways to remain active without participating in things that might annoy you, so if you find what you're currently doing here not to be any fun any more you might want to simply find something else to do. Anyway, it annoys me when reasonable folks leave and if there's anything I can do to help prevent that please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I can take the long view, I get what you are saying there. I'm just finding it hard to work out what I get out of this anymore. Every area I dip a toe in seems to involve investing an awful amount of time in arguing. It appears people no longer want to listen anymore, everyone is so convinced of the rightness of their view. But you're right, I need to step back and see where it is I can enjoy contributing. There just doesn't seem to be any joy around anymore, no sense of community what-so-ever. And the transient nature of everything is so frustrating. I'm certainly nowhere near being an old timer, but it's hard to restage discussions and re-iterate hard fought ideas. It'd be nice if we had just one definitive statement that was immutable, some corner of this project we could all agree on. But I'm pragmatic enough to know it'll come out in its own way. Hiding Talk 11:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the basic immutables are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Pretty much everything else is a consequence of these three (and/or really not that important - which I think includes nearly everything that most folks seem to want to argue about). There is clearly some sort of stability feature that's going to come, to protect article content from random vandalism. Procedurally something has to happen as well, since there are too many people here to self govern by direct democracy. I think these are the next two steps in Wikipedia's evolution. Article stability seems to be hotter at the moment, but I actually think the other one is at least as important. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The CovenantD issue

Not wanting to drag you out of your break...but since people are discussing you, I'll leave a link here until you have a chance to look: User talk:Jossi/AMA Kickstart70. Specifically, differing opinions of the reasons for your break. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

Hey, I have a question for you. I found what I consider a really credible source, but I have no idea how to attribute it. Basically, there is a reporter who sued/is suing the Topeka newspaper for the rights to publish his work on Fred Phelps, which was contracted by the paper. He sued for the rights to publish the article, and submitted it as evidence to the court. The article verified everything in that unreferenced statement, but I'm not sure if it can be cited since it wasn't published (he posted the entire complaint, which IS public record, along with the manuscript, online at [13]) but I don't know if that's okay or not. How frustrating! Any ideas? --Chuchunezumi 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Redirects

You may be right, although I think that in general any cross-namespace redirect is confusing. Hmmm...I do understand about not wishing to be contacted, although it's a bit awkward to cut off communication on a collaborative project like this. Perhaps you could redirect your talk page to a temporary subpage so that people could leave you messages, but you wouldn't get the yellow notice? — Knowledge Seeker 04:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

DA more harmless yet annoying

  1. For the Man Who Has Everything
  2. Dan Riba
  3. like here making mistakes and edit warring per a made up name convention, error that took me weeks to fix like the actual name convention indicates. Also notice the attack on the summary.

T-man harmful

OMG... now I get in trouble for legitimate fixes? Especially in For the Man Who Has Everything, a page I have done substantial work on before? And Dan Riba, for which T-man (wait for it) had THE WRONG NAME LISTED (namely Paul Dini)? So fixing Wikipedia by me is now annoying? And to top it off he creates Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dyslexic agnostic just to annoy me, knowing full well this Gillespie is not a sockpuppet. When will this insanity end?! -- Dyslexic agnostic 01:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I really believe both are the same person. I swear.

The problem here is the use of the word attack. As DA, allegedly knows as a lawyer, exposing evidence does not constitute an attack. But calling somebody harmful, or following him does. My vandalism control page doesn't grow if he doesn't follow me. That's the deal. I't should not include verbal attacks (like D A stalked, obsessed, etc), only reports when he edit's something straight after me. For example, what the need for date wikis in the very same page I moved to to work, when thousands of (even comic related ones) lack of those? That's the kind of odd activity don't appreciate.

Also, the harmful attack. What's the definition of harmful? The page does not contain insults anymore. A vandal act for example, is harmful. I think DA thinks the page is harmful because it mirrors his own actions which, if you consider the later vandalism, the summary insults, the way he kept following me even after you told him not to, and the bad edits (like renaming articles against disambiguation and tv naming conventios); are very harmful... to me and himself. He is the one making the page bigger not me (actually I've been making it incredibly smaller later). It's kinda like the Dorian Gray Portrait to him. Or like Jekyll & Mr. Hide, Hide was the size of Jeckyll's sin, smaller at first, and then as time passes Hide got bigger and bigger.--T-man, the wise 09:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


  • I can't believe it, I've been exteme li polite latey, but I neet to outburst. I can't believe the little freak did this I truly hate him. How can he expect to me to like him or work with him when he srews me like that. I truly hate him. He has kept following me around ant this time I'm incredibly pissed off. Milllions of pages where his opinion is needed and he had to go there. Can you understand the anger I'm feeling towards him. Should I also follow him around and badmouth his projects so that he knows how it feels? I havent done that fo far, out of respect for wikipedia and being coherent with what I complaint. But this time he really crossed the limit. Not even when he emptied my page and added grafitty a couple weeks ago felt this mad. Please, he is got to be controled somehow. --T-man, the wise 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
WHAT?? Here I actually compliment his hard work, and he finds it an insult? I said the page has come a long way with his work. I don;t get it. -- Dyslexic agnostic 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to negociate: If he stops following me around, I'll take that page off. I consider as "following me around": editing less than 3 days or 3 editors after my last edit. As soon as he follows me in such manner, more than 3 times or 4 separated out of 10 times, the page is back. I don't want him in my life. I hate him, I truly do, but if he stops following I'll stop compiling. I don't want to be his "team" or his "budd". I want to read from him as often as I happen to read from any normal user I know. --T-man, the wise 22:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits of his lately, and from now on, are all in complete good faith. His comments about me on his rant page are not. I won't abide by his terms, as my edits are done to improve his poor grammar and spelling, although I have no criticism of his knowledge or content or enthusiasm for the TV episode project. -- Dyslexic agnostic 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to worry about that for six months. --Chris Griswold 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the ban, can User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow/Vandalism & Harassment finally be removed? No hurry, you are on wikibreak, and so am I. Thanks. -- Dyslexic agnostic 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong, Research into Health Benefits on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Falun Gong, Research into Health Benefits. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Dear Sir,

The reason we chose to have a seperate page for Falun Gong, Research into Health Benefits was that the agreed upon framework for the main page required that only intros to subsections be left on the main page while each sub-section carried a daughter page.

It is requested that he page may please be undeleted.

Dilip rajeev 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We were working on an article and it is by no means a perfect one.. It is requested that more time be given for us to work on the structure and sub-pages rather than deleting the page.

How could be a research article be a "POV"? The fork Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong is mostly just propoganda material from the CCP shouldnt that page also be deleted then?

If you insist that we must not have such a sub-page, could you help me add the relevant content to the main page? Thankyou.

Dilip rajeev

  • Issues with other articles have no bearing on issues with this one. The article is protected and disputed at the moment, so I would suggest you propose your additions on the talk page and build a consensus on them. Hiding Talk 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi there, Hiding. Would you please take a look at User talk:Lesfer#Alex Ross and User talk:Majestic Lizard#Re:Alex Ross? Please, explain the matter to user Majestic Lizard. Regards — Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If my explanation to Majestic Lizard is correct, yep, the issue is over. Thanks — Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice.

Hey. Remember me? ACS. Well, first off, WB, Hiding. I know you took a break a little while back. Anyway, I was hoping you could help me handle a little situation at The Class. Someone wants to add a "behind the scenes" section. Now, I've tried to remove it, stating why in the edit summary. I've tried to discuss it on the TP. Now...I'm just not sure. Advice? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


I moved all of the articles to their proper locations; I was surprised by how easy it was. I was unable, unfortunately, to move five articles. I listed them at Requested Moves, but the page has a backlog, and these are unopposed, so I thought I would ask if you could move them. They are:

I appreciate your interest in the matter. I will be taking a break now. In a few days, I will be back and I can figure out the organization of the project you suggested. It will be nice to focus on one thing.--Chris Griswold 09:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Easing myself back in

Well, I'm slowly easing myself back in, but thanks for the comments. Sorry to drift out of the debate we were having, I pretty much agree with your thoughts on article stability and the governing of wikipedia. That said, what troubles me is that whilst WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are agreed as the basic immutables by consensus, the interpretation of them is open to such huge debate it seems like there is no consensus. They've become bloated and almost like religious tracts. The basic immutable seems to be that every article must reference a secondary source that has been subject to review by an editor or peers, and summarise that information as presented there-in. That would seem to be a statement worth declaring as the basic principle. Hiding Talk 11:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what debate about NPOV, V, and NOR you're talking about, but I think your one sentence summary is pretty much right on and I don't think there would be any particular disagreement (a couple of quibbles, published probably belongs somewhere and as presented there-in doesn't quite capture NPOV). BTW - have you read Jimbo's plenary speech from the recent Wikimania [14]? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Hiding, I suppose better late than never, I'd like to apologize for the headaches I caused you a while back. I was blatantly inserting link spam and I shouldn't have been, and you were doing the right thing by calling me out on it. I have removed all of the offending copyright infringing content in my site, with a complete overhaul and name change too :-) No strips are there anymore, nor is The Yukon Song. So anyway, I hope I hadn't contributed to much to your wikistress, and I apologize. - Mjg0503 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't mean to be annoying

Hey. Ace again. I was wonderong...well...hoping you help me with an image situation. Image:HotTopicLogo.gif, to be specific. Apparently, some users insist on uploading a image of the word "Poseur" in stylized text to replace the real logo. I was thinking the proper image could somehow be restored and then protected. I know it's a lot to ask, but this is like mucho persistant vandalism. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Hiding, Do you recall a conversation that Rick Block, you and I had several months ago about creating a flickr like tagging system to enable category intersections? Rick and I have been working up a proposal to do just that. We'd appreciate your feed-back. So come take a look. The proposal is here. -- Samuel Wantman 08:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your comment regarding mention of the term "sh**g*z*"(censored in the name of morale & good taste) on the My Bloody Valentine page. I've been editing this page a number of time over the months, for the obvious reason that a term as shallow and as meaningless as that has no true impact and doesn't even begin to accurately describe this band. To simply describe them "sh**g*z*", a quite frankly rubbish term coined by the narrow minded music press (to describe the way they look at their shoes when they play? what?), is inaccurate and unprofessional, and I don't feel it has any place on the page. And anyway, you'll notice that I only removed it on the formal bits describing My Bloody Valentine as a musical band and as a genre name, I left the description in regarding the term as applied to the band by the press, fans, other syncophants, etc. Although I plan on removing this when I can find an alternative with which to replace it. Juvenile terms like that have no place on Wikipedia, and I consider it vandalism when I see it included like its a serious musical term (such as rock 'n roll, metal, pop, etc.)

Ultimate Spider-Woman

Thanks for your action on this article. I removed the information from Spider-Woman and noted it on the talk page. --Newt ΨΦ 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


How did you get so good and knowledgeable about Wikipedia? --Chris Griswold () 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been here 18 months, I've been an admin nearly a year, I've had a go at all the major deletion processes, written the odd policy page and involved myself in discussing an awful lot of the others and just generally been interested in finding and working things out. But thanks for the compliment. The trouble with Wikipedia is working out what you want your focus to be. It's grown huge in even the time I've been here, and stuff happens that I don't get, like the featured article process, that's changed an awful amount in my time to the point I have no idea how it works. The basic thing is to get an understanding of the three key policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, get involved in deletion debates, and get involved in policy discussion. Keep an eye on the village pumps, especially proposals and policies, have a look at WP:RFC and respond to some of the requests, help discuss and build a proposal. And absorb it all, work out how it fits together. The more you get involved in, the more the processes will reveal themselves and you'll learn where the pages and guidance is. Browse the [[WP:|shortcut]] page. If you're preparing a run for admin, you'll probably need more policy page edits. Although I haven't been hanging out at RFA for a while so I don't know what the criteria for a succesful run is. You fishing for an admin nomination? :) Hiding Talk 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, I'm not. I'm just looking to get better at being a part of Wikipedia, and you consistently impress me with your fair-handedness and your understanding of policy. --Chris Griswold () 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hiding, Thanks for redirecting WP:EPISODE to WP:NOT. However, I don't think it is appropriate. I have tried to delete episode summaries because of WP:NOT point 7 and by saying they ignore WP:V. However, it never works because they are too popular to be deleted. I have rverted them; If youw ant to talk about it we can start an MFD. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. Fair play, although a good admin should base an afd closure in policy and not popular opinion. Hiding Talk 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You Are What You Think

This article was deleted, would it be possible to get the content of the article, as it was prior to deletion? You could copy it to a subpage in my userspace or email to me at if the content is unsuitable.

I'd really appreciate this, if you have the time. Thanks very much. User:Pedant 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Hiding. How would I go about finding out why the page was originally deleted? User:Pedant 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It was deleted under the proposed deletion process. Someone had proposed it be deleted as they felt it was a bad article, and in five days nobody contested that deletion so it was deleted. I have to say it's not a brilliant article. What are your plans with it? Hiding Talk 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Haven't said it in a while...=

...but thanks for the great work and for hanging in there. Having to police things like a "Fictional blonds" category isn't fun, but rest assured many of us regular comics editors appreciate your vigilance A LOT. Thank you, man -- Tenebrae 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I should be able to get my bot to clear out articles' references to categories in Category:Protected deleted categories without too much trouble. I'll work on it when I get a moment (which may not be this week). Regards, RobertGtalk 08:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks :) we can always argue some more, whenever you like. >Radiant< 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

You made a comment on my talk page. What's that about?--The Judge 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin

Hi, I'm sorry I haven't been available to comment on the improvements these last days. My computer just went dead and I have to upgrade it in order to get on the internet. I will probably first be available on Monday.

I can give you some brief pointers besides what I already wrote in the nomination.

  • I would like you to split up the "Overview" section into two sections. In general there shouldn't be an overview section, because that is what the lead is for. The first half should be a description of a standard plot. What kind of genre were in and so forth. The second should be about the publication history. In this section you should mention every single album.
  • The web references should be converted to {{cite web}}
  • Try and look out for short stubby paragraphs with fewer than three sentences.

Anyway, you have made good progress. I will make a more detailed comment next week. --Maitch 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all three points, although at the minute I'm still addressing other areas and the web citation is the lowest on my priority. I would hope an article wouldn't have FA status stripped on that concern, since anyone can step in and help there. Hiding Talk 17:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


You seem to be sure of what you did on Supergirl. What's the actual justification?--The Judge 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox DCAU character
| name = The Judge
| image = [[Image:Example.png|250px]]
| shows = Judge: The Animated Series <br /> The New Judge Adventures <br /> Judge League Unlimited
| first = On Judge wings
| last = Judge gave you Rock and Roll
| nickname = J-boy
| alias = Diego Lavalle Molina
| powers = Very judgemental
| species = Lawyer
| gender = Please... sorry I thought she asked me sex
| age = 20
| born = 05/07/1986
| occupation = Editor
| alliances = Wikipedia
| episode = 433
| portrayer = Diego Conroy
| creator = Diego Kane
| list = List of kickass m*th*rf*ck*rs

I redesigned the infobox to make it look rather like a complementary infobox than another superherobox. I was never sure about including the characteristics, since in most case those tend to stay the same. Taking those off, might be good in order to make the infobox look complementary. The only problem is that there are several cases in withc te statistics change... Maybe if I change the "Characteristics" header to "changed characteristics".

I didd further modifications:

  • I took of creator, since it can't change.
  • Instead of characteristics, the header says "different characteristics". Withc means susers only fill the chanching data, like with the name of the clock king or aresia.¨
  • Took of the Powers header and move it to "different characteristics", so it is undderstood the powers info should only be filled if there is any changes between versions.

...Now, I say some infoboxes called "navegation infoboxes". which hide content unless you click it. Maybe the differen characteristics hwader should work like that, hidding info.--The Judge 04:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked what you did on Clock king... Why? You didn't even bother to use the talk page. That's vandalism. I'm *not* going to call an admisnistrator or write in the notice board, but please fix it.--The Judge 05:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the talk page at Clock King, you should find where I detailed exactly why I did what I did. As to Supergirl, I left a pointer to the related discussion at the WikiProject talk page. Hiding Talk 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It, still not good enough, you choped off big amounts of info on Clock King and only left summaries like "Clean-up". I'm still mad at you, that was very unrespectful, fix it or I'll call an admin.--The Judge 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the talk page, I left an explanation as to the clean up, but feel free to ask one of my fellow admins as to whether my edits are vandalism or not. The info I chopped was information that wasn't of encyclopedic value, per What Wikipedia is not and Writing about fiction. If you feel mad, I suggest you read how to stay cool when the editing gets hot and before you label anything I did "unrespectful", consider whether you own any article and whether that accusation assumes good faith. Hiding Talk 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC: The discussion took place here

Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive10#Intermediate_sources Andries 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Get away, please

There are several people having the exact same problem with the exact same user. And they liked my comment, I don't see what's our problem. Who are you to talk, anyway? You've done nothing but attack me since you poped up in my page (even though you claimed to be friendly), and I resent that. And the warning is still on, if you don't fix the info you chopped off in Clock King soon I'll be callin an admin. user--The Judge 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No wonder why you're so bossy

Several people have the same problem with CovenantD. And I didn't even read more than the fiveth part of his talk page. I can't believe you support him. He is making wikipedia unpleasant for several people. I only helped the users complaining and himself realise there are several of us in the same situation. And I'm willing to help whoever has a problem with this user (unless of course CovenantD is right, case in which I'd try to help the other editor understand it). If CovenantD becomes more respectful, at least with my edits, I'll stop that. Even though I shouldn't because he should be respectful not only with me, but with everybody complaining about him in his talk page. specially since, so far I've only seen him deleting hours of work, just like you.

And so that you know, that Chris guy is doing the same, offering to support CovenantD deletionism. I think they could be one of those puppets.

However, I don't like you, please avoid contact. I can't respect somebody with so much disrespect for hours good work from several users (you also erased prose). I can't believe you're an administrator user. I'm still reporting you if you don't conciliate things in the talk page in question. I don't care if youre the King of England--The Judge 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


i am sushant gupta. Mbimmler abused me on my userpage. thanks Sushant gupta 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta

  • Looks like you have cleared this misunderstanding up. Hiding Talk 20:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability.. guideline?

Hi, I noticed that a few months ago you "made" Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) a guideline. I was wondering if that counts as an official guideline, or is that in name only. I had thought that for something to be an official guideline, it needs some sort of official vote. Is this not true? Fresheneesz 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See votes are evil What wikiipedia is not for thoughts on voting and whether Wikipedia is a democracy. Basically, it isn't, and we determine decisions by consensus. For details on how a policy is created, see and guidance on creating policy and guidelines. The page is indeed a guideline, there are no levels of guideline tagged pages, all pages so tagged have equal status, as guidelines. As to how I determined the consensus, I'd note the page is in wide usage, is linked to very heavily and no objections have been raised on the talk page. Hiding Talk 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you object to replacing the Template:IncGuide with Template:Guideline? Also, I don't really see the point of having it as a guideline since the main point of the entire article is that a company needs to be listed by multiple reliable sources exactly equal to WP:V. The only thing it adds is to allow the inclusion of "English men's football clubs competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system" - which sounds like a totally random inclusion, and is probably someones POV rather than a consensus. Fresheneesz 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page you'll see the consensus for that addition. This isn't the place to discuss whether it is a guideline or not, that should be done on the page's talk page. As to changing the tag, I do object, because for notability criteria we use the {{IncGuide}}. Hiding Talk 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Your objection gives no valid reason. Saying "it is because it is" is a horribly blunt circular argument. You got anything better? The notability requirement all links back to WP:N which is a stub proposal with no support whatsoever, and follows in the footsteps of 2 failed proposals. I think thats an inappropriate association. Fresheneesz 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is fairly high support for it. Wikipedia:Notability is a high-visibility page, linked and referred to everywhere; anyone who objects to the change objects on the Talk page; anyone who agrees with it says "oh, that's a good idea" and continues along their way. The text of that page is pretty clear and being on Wikipedia for almost 3 years and encountering hundreds of editors on subjects directly related to this issue, at an absolute, extraordinarily conservative minimum, two-thirds of Wikipedia editors would agree with the statements on that page now; they are quite a basic common ground. The people who object are always the most vocal, and the people who agree aren't usually vapid enough to leave an empty "Support" vote on the Talk page. — Centrxtalk • 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
People agreeing upon it as an essay didn't agree upon it as a guideline. How many people do you think have realized that it is now a guideline proposal, and have supported it? Look at the talk page - Not many. Fresheneesz 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have lost the thread of this discussion. We don't use one template because we use another. That's not a circular argument, but continuously asking "why" is when one has been given the answer. Why do we tag articles for deletion with {{afd}} rather than {{cfd}}? For clarity and as a method of explanation. Why do we use {{IncGuide}} instead of {{guideline}}? Because about a year or so ago, someone grouped all these pages together and tagged them through their commonality. And people thought it was a good idea so we used it. What links where has no real bearing on the material on a page. Let's not forget that ultimately, Wikipedia exists because a couple of people thought it was a good idea to build an encyclopedia. I happen to agree with them. Any power in a policy page is there because the people building the encyclopedia grant it. There is no reason beyond that. I appreciate it's hard to take when consensus seems to contradict how you believe, but sometimes those are the breaks. Let's not forget we are here to build an encyclopedia, not build rules telling us how to do it. Any decision on Wikipedia is going to be disputed, so we need touchstones to work out how we all feel about things. When a page is cited repeatedly in such discussions, it usually implies it offers guidance. However, let's not forget, contributing to Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Hiding Talk 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the power of any policy stems from the believers in that policy. And thanks for clarifying what I was really after. However, in building this encyclopedia, people have also been building rules for how to do it as well - to make the process go smoother and faster. "contributing to Wikipedia isn't for everyone" - what are you implying.. :: raises eyebrow :: ? Fresheneesz 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I finally answered what you were after, although I'm still none the wiser as to what it was. People will always build rules. We will also always have Ignore all rules. As to what I mean by stating that not everyone finds editing Wikipedia to their tastes, I mean exactly what I say, nothing more, nothing less. Hiding Talk 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Judge

The way he writes, his edits, his behavior towards other editors... I wonder if he's not (at least) linked to a problematic six-month-banned user. — Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one who has been thinking that. To create a WikiProject and a number of templates within days of registering is out of the norm and seems suspect. --Chris Griswold ( ) 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I asked him about this on Tuesday. He says no. The next step is internal investigation. Hiding Talk 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You can make that four people who suspect them to be one and the same. CovenantD 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's just been confirmed, as well as Shredder-man[15]. Can you, using the admin mop, go about deleting all the crap that he's created since his return? CovenantD 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No surprise at all. Now, what about all those templates he's created and proposed?
I can delete them, but any user can remove them from an article. However, if you do, use the following edit summary: removing additions by a user evading an arb-com block, see WP:BAN and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Any help would be appreciated. Hiding Talk 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He's created some articles as well:

Some of these using his Shredder-man persona. What to do? Delete them all just like those three templates? — Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

His upload log, Hiding: [16]Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold ( ) 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

CAT: DCAU characters

If this category has been speedy deleted, won't administators who watch the categories for discussion depopulate it? --Chris Griswold ( ) 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that work can be done by any editor, not just an admin. But yes. I just fancied that speed was of the essence and it was good experience for you. :) Hiding Talk 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Good experience. Very funny. I'll keep clicking save. :) --Chris Griswold ( ) 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, is that how it works? I can list it at the cfd working page if it's too much. And seriously, it's a good thing to have in your edit history. Hiding Talk 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


No problem looking over the page. FAR is just small enough we can give each a little TLC... There's a couple more on-the-fence comments I'm sure you'll notice in the review, which you may want to take care of. Marskell 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hiding. I sense a little exasperation in your last review comment on Tintin :). I'm basically a keep on the article myself, and I think at the present pace of work (there's about four editors copyediting) there should be no worry. The page will be that much better with the criticisms addressed.
I hope you're largely agreeing with my copyediting. Basically I've been shortening sentences, as there's some unneeded language. For instance, there's sometimes repeated or obviously implied information in sentence predicates that does not belong ("Hegre created a well-realized world for his characters to inhabit.").
Keep up the good work. Marskell 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, all's well that ends well. A few people dropped into the page to work on it, and its now a much better FA. Cheers, Marskell 05:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And now...

You recently said that CFD is broken. Could you please elaborate? It may be fixable. I've got some duct tape right here. >Radiant< 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Please point me to some of these disputed decisions? What (if anything) seems to be the agenda or direction of this clique? >Radiant< 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I begin to see your point. I'm not sure if it's quite this bad yet, but ironically I predicted this wildgrowth of categories over a year ago. The problem is that while we have some policy/guideline about what categorization is or isn't appropriate, (1) most people don't read that, (2) most people don't understand that the more categories an article has, the less meaningful they all become, (3) most long-term editors don't care about categories, and (4) people can "drive-by" to have their pet cats kept (pun intended).
    • I think passing WP:CI swiftly goes some way into stopping this (at least, it'll get rid of "foo by religion" and "bar by sexuality"). A second Good Thing would be gathering some clueful users and having them comment on each day's CFD (it's not that much work, honestly). A third option would be to strictly enforce CSD#G4 on categories, but that'd require a list of them (or the good memory of some clueful users). There was some effort in creating that, but it fizzled out.
    • Looking around CFD some more, the biggest problem seems to be the intersective cats. So if any of you are anywhere near IRC this week, please chat up the developers regarding [ bug.cgi?id=5244 bug 5244]. >Radiant< 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_Categories. >Radiant< 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked me how I'm getting on with making my bot patrolling Protected deleted categories. At the moment RobotG is broken, because of the recent major change to the category listing (the tree format): I am of course working on fixing that first without having as much time to devote to it as I'd like. When RobotG is back to health I will try and code up the feature you requested as promised. Regards, RobertGtalk 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. RobotG will now patrol Protected deleted categories too. First tentative run just completed. --RobertGtalk 10:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Something has been nagging at me since T-Man was caught with two sock puppets. Please take a look at T-ManWiki (talk · contribs). Is this worth a checkuser? --Chris Griswold ( ) 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing trouble with the Star Wars comics

What should we do about Skope (talk · contribs)? He was told not to make articles for individual Star Wars issues, but he continues to do so. There are so many articles to merge because of him, and some of them aren't even out yet. He just makes less-than-stubs that, until he can add more information, are all duplicate regurgitations of press releases. --Chris Griswold ( ) 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold ( ) 09:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

Thanks for making the adjustment; the project will work much better this way. I read a discussion between Jimbo Whales and a guy from Britannica on, and it got me thinking again about the strength of Wikipedia's numbers. If new people work with more experienced people, they can learn how better to edit. --Chris Griswold ( ) 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Hey, Hiding, and thanks for your comments at WP:EL. I am willing to listed to comments that are both for and against me, to see what I can do to reach a reasonable consensus.

Regarding the bit you struck out, you made a very valid point. I did prompt a pointless, stupid and embarrassing edit war. Obviously at the time I was a total newb without a clue that obviously hadn't read this, this, or this. I want to make it very clear that I am truly sincere when I say that I wish the whole thing never happened and that I was entirely to blame. Since the dispute I have removed all offending material that I could find on my site, and have recently made it over again from scratch. If you see anything there that is still offending copyright, please let me know and I will remove it. I have no intention or desire to violate any copyright with my site, and that's not just because I want a link from Wikipedia. I get tons more from other sources than I do from WP. The reason for creating my site was simple: I really enjoy Calvin and Hobbes, and I wanted to create a place on the web for fans to enjoy, as well as for newcomers to get aquianted with the strip.

I want to try to see if we can simply put the whole dispute behind us. You did come off as a bit rude, and hasty to me, but I think that much of that was caused by ignorance and rudeness on my part.

The main reason I brought up this discussion was not prompted by linking to my site, but rather on linking to other Calvin and Hobbes fan sites that are in the article. There are several very useful links there that would technically not be allowed by the current system, because it only allows for linking to one fan site. However, there is more than one site that merits linking, and I don't think that they (or fan sites in general) should be excluded on these grounds. This is not just for my selfish reasons either, it is for the good of the entire project. There is no reason for Wikipedia to be arrogant and refuse to link to fan sites on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". This is true, but there is no harm in having a few external links at the the of a well-written article. Please note as well, that in cases where there are many (I'd say more than five) quality fan sites to link to, that the propsed change states that linking instead in that case to a Open Directory Project category (or, if there is none, some other directory such as Yahoo!) would be the best solution.

Anyway, I hope that you can offer some suggestions on what you would prefer me to do, and what to change about the proposal to make it reasonable to you. I know that you want to stick to your guns and not links to fan sites period, but a pretty healthy majority (but mind you, not a consensus yet) think that the proposal on the table is a good solution. I really believe that if we are all willing to compromise a bit, we'll come to a reasonable consensus. Thanks. - Mike 00:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

Thanks for pointing it out; I've replied there. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Asgardian

Hi, Hiding. I see you're staying busy!

I hate to add to your burden, and am only doing it after another admin who wanted to help said he didn't know enough after comics. He suggested I got the Admin noticeaboard, but before doing that and possibly running into the same problem, I was hoping you might take a look. It involves the ever-problematic Thor (Marvel Comics). (God — so to speak — who would have thought such a low-selling, twice-canceled character had such fervent fans.)

User:Asgardian continues to make trivial and often misspelled and stylistically wrong, and grammatically poor edits to Thor that three other editors (User:CovenantD, User:Jamdav86 and myself) keep removing, to no avail. See this example. He won't work with the community, won't offer compromise solutions, and writes long, defensive diatribes at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics). It's not vandalism per se, I don't believe, but edits clearly against consensus. Any advice? -- Tenebrae 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hiding. -- Tenebrae 19:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you could look at the rest of Asgardian's recent edits it would be appreciated. He keeps reverting many other Thor related articles to his prefered version, often wiping out the SHB, wikilinks, categories and the other language stuff at the bottom. I'm getting tired of having to revert his/her sloppy edits, day after day after day, on article after article. CovenantD 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Please allow time for more discssion with regard for your proposed changes. David.Kane 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the changes, but don't simply revert them, thanks. Hiding Talk 13:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for accusing you of making 3 reverts when, in fact, you had only made 2. Since I have made three, I will not be making more today, although I hope other editors will. It is not so much that I object to the substance of your changes as I object to the high-handed (as it appeared to me) style of making them. David.Kane 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at User_talk:David.Kane

Hiding, I must disagree with the way you went about doing things as noted in your second comment on David's talk page. Notice that the rest of us brought up a topic on the talk page before making significant changes to the guide, whereas you simply came in and made your changes, and then brought them up on the talk page. When David then reverted your edits that had been made without disucssion, you commented "feel free to disucss changes, but don't revert them without discussion." Am I missing something here? Because I was under the impression it was the other way around. - Mike 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • (I've amended the above back to the original version. If you want to make changes, please strike out using <strike>strike through code</strike>. Hiding Talk 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (Sorry, you keep changing your comments as I try to reply so I'm not sure this is valid anymore but here goes.) Are you suggesting I was too bold. I've got a fair understanding of policies and what works and what doesn't. There's currently no consensus for the page to be split as David was attempting. The onus is on him to build consensus for that change. I was not amending established policy beyond anything that had already existed or been discussed. My point to David regarding don't revert without discussion was that David had already reverted the page twice. It was clear there was a problem and our guidance is that problems are discussed, not reverted. edit wars don't get us anywhere. However, the page is now protected due to the edit warring that occurred, and everyone now has to discuss the issues involved. I'm not clear what your point is, exactly. I asked a user not to revert but to seek discussion. Hiding Talk 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry about that. I was just fixing typos and things of the like, didn't mean to create an edit conflict :-). I think you misunderstood me a little. I disagreed with David's changes, however what I noticed were your changes to the wording of some of the sections, which did have an impact on their meaning. Looking back at the edit history I think I got a little confused about what was reverted and what wasn't (very chaotic at that time :-), but I think it would have been nice if you had braught up those changes on the talk page before making them, rather than making them and expecting that nobody revert them. I don't fault your intentions, and I am sure that the changes were in good faith. Heck, maybe I'm just a little over-sensitive to them because I was involved in all that was going on at the talk page at the time. Maybe we were getting into debating petty changes to the guide, because some of your edits seemed to be along the lines of what we were still debating over. I am glad the page has been protected so that now we won't have to worry about edit warring and can simply come to a solution. Happy editing! - Mike 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, I think I'm finished with the integration. Check it out and see what you think. I gave a quick explanation of changes at this talk page. - jc37 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, tardy reply. Seems to be settled and okay. How are we disambiguating publications now? I quite liked the idea of using publication. Hiding Talk 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I just saw that you deleted a mainspace article by this name. The sole contributor to this article was User:Rakaboshi. It was an empty page, and I do not contend that it should not have been deleted. But, the thing is that you did not inform the newbie user about its deletion. Many of potential editors may be deterred by that. I suggest that you write up some kind of note on this particular user's page, about the page he created and why it was deleted. Please reply here if you want to, I am watching this page Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I was going to but the phone rang. Thanks for the note though. Also have to list Zippy (SWG) rev 2 at the deleted pages list. Hiding Talk 12:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring assitance

Hullo. I'm trying to trim the fat from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop to make it remotely usable. I've copied a version to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Sandbox2. I'm currently cutting out side issues etc, but the bigger task will be the summarising/condensing of things that do need inclusion. I could use some help, even if it's just in the form of "edit so-and-so was bad, leave in foo and take out bar." - brenneman {L} 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still kinda adding stuff to the page to try and get across what I see as the issues. I think it might be best to just leave the whole page as it is, it's a workshop, they tend to get messy. The committee will work out what they want from it. If people think I'm adding to the mess, well, they know where to find me. Hiding Talk 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was naive...

To hope that everyone could work together in finding solutions to the problems in this RfA, editing collaborativly. I'm over that, but when I'm on the committee, it will be better.

Regardless, I hate to read your last few posts, as you sound dispirited. Yes, this arbitration is a disaster. Yes, there are quite a few dogdy practices laid bare without solutions evident. But buck up little camper, we'll get it right eventually. Wikipedia, I mean, even I don't still have much hope for this arbitration.

brenneman {L} 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The thought of you on the arb-com made me smile. I'm getting tempted to stand myself next time, but I haven't got the clout to make it anything but a dream. I'm very unclear on what the scope is on that arbitration, and I haven't yet received a reply. I'm not sure I'd manage it any better though. I have been thinking that the only way to get a deadminship proposal working is to go straight to the top. Who has the power to deadmin? Hiding Talk 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Current events

1.) First, thank you for the comment. I saw you were somewhat buried in other matters. But even so, no need to apologise, as I said, I had no expectations : )
For further info see: Kbdank's talk page; Wryspy's talk page; my talk page And for "after comments": David D.'s talk page and my RfA page itself (in particular, my "last day comments at the top).
And I appreciate the nomination offer. see David D.'s talk page for my comment on that. (Sorry about all the "see also"s, but it sounds better to not try to re type out another essay : )

2.) Please also check out the discussion on the WP:UCFD talk page (observations).

3.) Now that it's been "stable" for awhile, I think I'd like to start working on Hal Jordan as that's one of the requests on WP:CMC. Any thoughts? - jc37 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you want to do it collaboratively or on your own? Hiding Talk 13:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • May hands make light work, many eyes see what a single pair might miss. That said, either way is fine with me. It seems we were timely in our discussion. Did you note the discussion on the WikiProject's talk page? I think maybe we (I?) need to clarify about the overview articles when not disambiguated? - jc37 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You could either work it up in your user page or do it in a temp subpage of the article, and invite collaboration. I'd be happy to give pointers. The general idea would be to split the page into sections, and then work the sections up into articles. That sort of thing. Hiding Talk 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, Hiding. Would you mind checking what the heck is this ?? — Lesfer (t/c/@) 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've left a message. I'll take it from there. Hiding Talk 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :D — Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had to be sure you weren't playing favorites. Then I deleted it. Brian Boru is awesome 15:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User Lesfer

Hiding, if you would please advise editor Lesfer to refrain from personal attacks, specifically (Don't be such a cry baby, kid. Grow up.), and (really, how old are you? 10?). There is a semantic difference in how Lesfer and myself view the categories as they are assigned to specific individuals with two aliases. Lesfer had stated that I have "a personal grudge against me", however it is Lesfer himself that uses a derogatory tone towards each of my contributions and has failed to WP:AGF on my behalf. Thank you for your time. NetK 23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sping clean

I've just ran once over WP:Notability (People) . There's a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Medium_sized_clean-up if you'd like to partake. Not a shake-up, just a tidy-up. - brenneman {L} 11:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the thought. I seem to have my hands full at the moment, and one day I want to get back to finishing Tintin. Sob. I'll do what I can. Hiding Talk 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey, Hiding. As this whole thing begun because of this, I hope you tell him how uncivil false accusations of vandalism are. Cheers — Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. No problem at all. — Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From this point

Hiding, touche regarding your comments on the incident report. The matter has been handled and we'll work from this point forward. I see consensus reached relating to Clark Kent and Nuklon, and look forward to other articles specifically being mentioned as to consensus regarding categorization. Please see my analysis on the Atom article included on the Projects page relating to Suicide Squad. Thx. NetK 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm glad it all sorted itself out. I'll try and look at the Atom issue. Might not get to it though, many pies. Hiding Talk 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Hiding: I have proposed Peanuts as a possible collaboration of the month at WP:COMICS. I merged your old nomination into the new one, was that the correct way to re-nominate it? I'm new to the WikiProject. Here's hoping it passes. Needs a lot of work and references. -  Mike | trick or treat  23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno what's supposed to happen with an old nom and a new one, first time it ever happened. Looks like one way to do it. :) I'll have to get around to working on Peanuts one day. Instead of working for them. Good luck. Hiding Talk 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional elementals

What's supposed to happen with this? I mean, you know me, I'd just empty it. Merge it where? Do we really need to categorise fictional characters by their abilities? Hiding Talk 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following to the WikiProject talk page. It has the necessary links. But to summarise, we need to merge the category into subcats of category:Fictional characters by superhuman power, and listify the actual "elementals" (not including the element manipulaters/generaters). - jc37 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category help

Per this now closed CfD/R, category:Fictional elementals needs to be manually recategorised. (See discussion here.) Any and all help would be appreciated. - jc37 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I read the stuff at the project page, but like I say, I'm still not clear on what's supposed to happen. Listify which "elementals"? The classical elementals, like those that use fire or water, or the elementals like Swamp Thing and.... did Ostrander do something with um, Nucleo, was it? And I think Gaiman made Brother Power the Geek a doll elemental. Or something. See, this is why I get confused and just want to delete it all. :) Hiding Talk 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Firestorm. That's who Ostrander did something with. Hiding Talk 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nature's elementals, as opposed to element wielding characters, I believe is the idea. If you think that it's confusing, I can go through and try to deal with the elementals first, if you (and others?) can start the merge of the wielders. (Though I think most are already sub-categorised, so it's just a matter of removing the elemental category, and checking for subcat categorisation.) - jc37 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll make a start and you can see if I cock up. Meantime you can explain what you mean by nature's elementals. It'd help me if you could list some examples. Hiding Talk 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Elemental lists the non-comic book ones. I think we should create: List of elementals in fiction and possibly List of elementals in the DC Universe - Swamp Thing (Alec Holland), Firestorm (Martin Stein), Red Tornado (John Smith), and there was a water one (Naiad) in some issues of Firestorm, but I don't know if she's still around. A "deity" of sorts named "Maya" (not to be confused with the recent superheroine of Indian descent) apparently claimed to give the four of them their elemental powers. Category:Heralds of Galactus already exists, though it too, should probably be listified for similar reasons. What's going to be "fun" is video games and media related to video games. Four Fiends, for example. Perhaps List of elementals in computer and video games. How's that for a start? - jc37 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Mark Millar's run on Swamp Thing played with this a bit, he developed a Parliament of Stone, of Water, of Wind and of Fire, and made Swamp Thing become champion of all of them and thus unified them all into a Parliament of Earth. I don't have the issues anymore, but he seemed to disregard the "Maya" idea, although I could be wrong. Hiding Talk 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •  ? How come you moved this to my talk page? There's no discussion to unify. Hiding Talk 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever anyone asks me a question, I move their question, and my response to their talk page. It keeps the question in context, and to me would seem to be the polite thing to do. - jc37 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah. You can just as easily reply at your talk, I watch other people's talk pages after I've posted a comment, and I think your talk page is one I watch permanently now, in case I miss a good idea. :) Hiding Talk 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I made the request. --Chris Griswold ( ) 17:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair play. I was trying to hammer something out off-wiki, but that hasn't come to anything as yet, so no problems. Whilst you are here, I owe you a few replies. Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) seems to be gathering pace without me, which is good. The cleanup project is a good idea, but is what the comic project is supposed to be, and also I'm stretched everywhere at the moment. User:T-ManWiki I would put money on being someone else who decided to clean up after T-Man, I have an idea who but those dragons may as well lie sleeping for now. User:Skope still a problem? I think that's it. Hiding Talk 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words on my RFA. I've always tried to be more like you as an editor. I used to ask you how you got you skill with Wikipedia mechanics, as well as patience in dealing with disputes, but it turns out a lot of it comes with experience. I appreciate all the help you have given me, and I plan to do my best, should I become an admin. Otherwise, I will probably just slack off and relegate myself to mocking the good work of other users. Thanks again, Chris Griswold ( ) 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As for Skope, we got him to merge his single-issue articles, but I think he's stuck at maintaining the story arc articles. --Chris Griswold ( ) 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

T-Man Parte the Thirteenth

So, I guess it's cleanup time again. --Chris Griswold ( ) 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • yeah. I've just blocked User:201, I'm just in the middle of sorting out what to do with the IP addresses. I know they can be tricky, since more than one user can have the same IP address. Time to re-read my policies. Hiding Talk 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Block and updating ArbCom ruling

Hi there. After being told that User:201 is a sockpuppet, I investigated further and I see you implemented these two indef blocks: [17] and [18], but on reading the ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic, I saw that the Logs and Bans bit at the bottom hasn't been updated to include the indef block. HTH. Carcharoth 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops, good catch, certainly does help, ta. Hiding Talk 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Hiding

Do you consider this to be a perosnal attack?I don't believe it is but CovenantD thinks it is.

Categories Per cfd notice board do not delete categories until voting is done. Then do what you like!!What's with the hate!!Why all this DC Comics tv series in the deletion categories crap.Brian Boru is awesome 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't respond well to personal attacks. Would you like to try again? CovenantD 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) It's not a personal attack. Per cfd notice board do not delete while discussion is in progress. And besides I never attacked you.How was mine a personal attack besides?I never even commented on you just the categories. Lighten, up. Brian Boru is awesome 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"What's with the hate!!" is an assumption and an attack on my motives. CovenantD 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from ""

Violations ?


I agree conversation would be advantegeous. I noticed Lesfer has made a series of such moves of which you have not commented on, and I simply did the same. If we are to treat each Flash as different, we should treat each Robin and Superman as different by also providing them their own article. DC Comics lists them separately, why are we different?

You had mentioned two guidelines which I was violating. I'm sorry but I fail to see a precise example of this relating to the free license, I've extracted material to produce adjacent articles but I don't believe I disgarded any contributions from fellow users. However I will review the guidelines in more depth, as they are always beneficial to incorporate into our contributions.

If there have been any violations, please WP:AGF that I was unaware of the precise mechanics involved in these guidelines as it applies to recent edits.

Additionally, you are asking that we handle each article as a separate case, however you have previously sighted the "No Rules" guideline, yet by saying we should treat each article as separate fact...a rule in and of itself. If they are to be handled as exceptions, then why have a comicbook project to lend suggestions across the board?

That said, I agree that more conversation should be involved, and would ask you also invite Lesfer and others who have also follow the same naming convention I have utilized into the dialogue. Thank you for your time.

Hey Hiding User:Netkinetic is still making Robin (Richard Grayson). He might be trying to fix it, but he's making it worse. Brian Boru is awesome 18:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Renshaw in Mitcham

I'll admit, that was a poor reason for deletion. Though, in my own defense, I honestly was having trouble figuring out what the article was about, and I was right, it didn't belong. DesertSky85451 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to do that? Thats insane. Half the time prod tags are ever removed is because some anon-IP comes and takes it away. Golly the red tape of Wikipedia makes me want throw my monitor out the window sometimes..... DesertSky85451 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Archive

(Archival Note: The following several discussions took place on jc37's (my) talk page, Hiding's talk page, and the talk page of the "new" - now deleted/redlinked - page described below. - jc37 19:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Unified discussion

Moved several related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (Feel free to revert if you wish.) - jc37 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, I have no idea what on earth you are doing, but I'd like you to not chop about with my talk page and spell my name right. I'm not clear what some of those sections have to do with the issue. Hiding Talk 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Did you ask Netkinetic before you started cutting stuff off of his user page? Hiding Talk 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally saved page before I could include the comment. This discussion's starting to get out of hand, and I think we should stop the creates/moves and talk about it. The problem is that the discussion is scattered across many talk pages. - jc37 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is always scattered, that's Wikipedia. You shouldn't cut stuff off of people's talk pages without asking first, that's just as bad as the issue we're discussing now. Half that stuff is unrelated. Most of the discussion is at the WikiProject, just point people there. Hiding Talk 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean to say you've never seen a discussion moved to a sub-page? Or just that you don't agree with the idea? As for the accusation of "just as bad":
  • "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile." (bolding mine) See also: Help:Talk page.
That page also has an answer to your previous question about unifying discussion on talk pages. See: Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. - jc37 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears the message at the top of my talk page got lost in an archive or something, but I used to have a message telling people I would reply at their talk page. And whilst I have seen discussion moved, I have never ever seen messages from user talk pages moved in that fashion. And I have no idea what you are talking about with Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. If I've done that, I apologise, but let me know where so I can fix it. If you are applying it to what you did, well, user talk pages are user pages, so "Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests." User talk pages are for leaving messages. It's not best practise to start cutting messages off other people's talk pages without checking first. Like I say, that's just as bad as moving pages here there and everywhere without discussing first. If I have offended you in any way, please accept my apology, but I'm finding it hard to understand what's going on here. Hiding Talk 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
And I missed the part where you apologised for spelling my name wrong. Hiding Talk 20:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Offended? no. Surprised at the apparent vehemence of the response would probably be more accurate. Though if I am mis-reading, my apologies, in turn.

I meant the quote in the latter fashion, in response to your statement of "just as bad". (Which I thought I had made clear. Perhaps not.)

As for user pages, the "feel free to revert" means exactly that. I wonder if you were being helpful in doing all the reversions yourself? Possibly. Thuogh I think that will be up to each user. I honestly have no further opinion on it.

As for your name, I presume you're talking about the typo of B/b ? I fixed it as a typo (I'm not certain, but I think even before I saw your comment about it. I could be wrong though). In any case, if such a typo has garnered any ill-feeling or ill-will on your part, I wholly do of course apologise, as of course, it was unintentional. Though I have to say that it's not unlikely I may typo as such in the future, and if so, please take it in that sense, rather than in some fashion in which you may deem that it should require an apology.

To be rather honest, I've never seen you like this, even when dealing with some of the situations I copied on that page. So at this point, I think I'm going to take it all with a grain of salt, and hope that whatever is troubling you will be resolved in a positive way for you forthwith : ) - jc37 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not at all sure where you are going with this. Being helpful reverting talk pages? I'm not being helpful, I'm putting things back the way they were and letting people edit their talk pages how they want. I'm not sure how they archive their talk pages, but I know how I archive, and your removal of sections would have left me with an incomplete archive. Now forgive me if that appears trivial to you, but I do consider that how I archive my talk page is for me to decide. I'm aware I asked you whether you had asked Netkinetic before you removed items from his talk page, I'm also aware that after asking you that you removed stuff from my talk page. That you disregarded my concerns and that you didn't even consult me before removing stuff from my talk page just seems wrong to me. That you can't accept that, or even acknowledge that your actions may perhaps have been better being discussed with the users in question first disturbs me somewhat. I'm not clear exactly what you are doing here, but it would be nice to have my concerns addressed. I appreciate that you fixed my name, but as you can see, I did note it above, a reply to at least one of my points would have been appreciated. Still, like I say, I queried what you did, you then did the same to me and here we are. Hiding Talk 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain where you feel that I haven't responded to your questions. But please, feel free to restate the question, and I would be happy to try again. As I look up the page, I think we've both waxed on well in verbosity.
  • As for whether I thought the action was "wrong"... No, not wrong, because, as I mentioned on each page, they were welcome to revert. That makes all the archiving concerns actually trivial. "If you don't want things mercilessly edited..." I've been polite, and sincere, and by your responses - honestly confused. The only thing I can think of is that you saw my accidental "save page" on Netk's talk page, before I was done, and got all worked up, even though I responded on your talk page to clarify, once I saw the concern. To my knowledge I have never disregarded you. I've actually sought you out because I have liked your usual thoughtful approach to things here. I'm serious, this whole discussion leaves me flabbergasted. But anyway... I'll ask again, What do you feel I haven't responded to, and I'll be happy to try to clarify. (Though no guarantees it will be immediate, though I'll try. I am finishing a rather long response to someone else, and then I really should go - life calls : ) - jc37 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm off : ) Perhaps I'll be back later today. I hope you have a great day. - jc37 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Given this, this, and especially this, as well as the semi-active discussions on the WIkiProject's main talk page, I think things have calmed down quite a bit, and I no longer see a current purpose to needing: Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. I don't claim that it was responsible for the cooling of tensions, but I won't discount it either. (We cannot, as far as I know, determine who may have read the page, and at this point it doesn't matter anyway.)
  • I'll copy what was on the talk page there to here, in case there was something further you wanted to discuss (in which case, I'm all ears : )
  • Once the discussion is done (I'll leave that determination to you, at this point), feel free to archive this discussion as you would normally (as you mentioned above), at your convenience.

The following two sub-sections are from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion:

Disambiguation Discussion

I combined the talk page entries on the main side of this page in order to try to collate all the discussion that's been going on. As anyone can tell, a fair amount of zealousness, and borderline incivility has been occurring. I think we all need a sit down with a nice cup of tea, before this goes "too far", and/or "someone" gets blocked over this.

One key principle that I hope comes out of this, beyond the current discussions (which may be fruitful, and I hope they continue) is what to do about the Pre-Crisis DC characters: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Robin, Huntress, Green Arrow, and Speedy. This has been further confused by Infinite Crisis, and those characters' re-appearance.

For now, I'd like to ask a moratorium on creating/moving articles related to this, for at least 48 hours. I think Wikipedia will survive in the meantime : )

Looking forward to the discussions. - jc37 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Half this stuff appears irrelevant, and the issue is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Renaming articles to 'Hero (alter ego)'. I'd advise that we continue discussing it there. This page seems to be focussing on issues regarding users, not the content. Hiding Talk 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that it all related to the discussion in question. And I would think transparency is best. this diff was what suggested to me that we are coming close to a point of "back room" finger pointing, and not transparent discussion. DO as you will... I just would like to see this resolved positively rather than the apparent current trend. - jc37 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No, there's no back-room finger pointing here, and that's not a good accusation to throw around given the issues you are dragging here. I hadn't even responded to Brian yet, and given the message was for me, it might have been polite to let me address it. I have no idea what you are insinuating with the phrase "the apparent current trend" but if you have a problem with me it might be best to let me know what that problem is. Half of this stuff is entirely unrelated. You have a discussion regarding unrelated categories here, ah, I don't know what you are doing, but that's because you haven't discussed it. You still haven't addressed the fact that you chopped stuff from people's talk pages without asking. That's not polite. User pages shouldn't generally be edited like that. And there is no issue of a lack of transparency, all this stuff is there to start with. There are issues with discussions happening off-wiki elsewhere at the moment, I'd hate to see that start happening here. Provide links to diffs if you have to, but some of the issues you are dragging up again were settled. Not everyone may appreciate having their dirty linen aired the way you are doing so here. I'm sorry, I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but to me this isn't the way to do it. The issue was being discussed at the WikiProject page. Hiding Talk 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't making any accusation. "this diff was what suggested to me that we are coming close to a point of "back room" finger pointing, and not transparent discussion." - suggesting to me that we are coming close, does not accuse that we are. Though I apologise if that somehow wasn't clear. This is an attempt at being proactive. Hoping that we can discuss "before" it gets to the "out of hand" point. As noted on the main part of the page, you yourself have suggested this already...
As to "unrelated", I think they are all related to the naming/categorisation of characters, especially pages which include more than one character, or more than one character name, including the "pre-crisis" characters and their memberships. If I included something not a part of that, please clarify. - jc37 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I give. I don't like this one bit, but you aren't addressing any points I'm making at all so I don't see any point in going further. I'm not clear I've discussed anything on the main page, I'm not even clear what the main page is. I know messages I hadn't even responded to were removed from my talk page, and no-one has explained why. I think asserting that it was about to get out of hand may be assuming bad faith. But I give. There's nothing to discuss here, it's a circular argument. Was the offer to revert you genuine? Hiding Talk 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
(Added after copying to Sb's talk page) - I'm not certain what "points" of yours that I am not addressing, feel free to clarify. The "main page" = the "main page" that this talk page discussion was attached to. It was about several comments you made to editors about Civility. (Such as this one.) Hope this helps. - jc37 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent events

(I think I'll try reply to each within your response, for clarity.) - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've followed that convention. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the sub-page, I was going to ask you if you wanted to go down that route. If you want that stuff archived in my talk, I don't care either way.

(interjection) - I wasn't asking you to archive. I was asking you to delete the other page, but I copied the discussion to your talk page for unifications reasons, but more so that you didn't think I was trying to "cut off" the conversation. I also tried to make it clear that what you did was up to you, as far as I was concerned, and was holding no expectations at this point, either for discussion, or whatever. And since you made a point about how deeply you care about archival, I was communicating that if you were done with the conversation, I could be too, and to feel free to archive at your whim. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • JC, I'm not sure what you're telling me here, but the stuff is in my latest talk page archive. You can just as easily pull it back out and put it wherever you want, but it really makes no odds to me where it goes. Per dispute resolution I had indicated that I could see no value in that conversation continuing in it's current form, so no, I would never have thought you were trying to cut off that conversation, I think I managed that on my own. You put it on my talk page, and I archived my talk page, so it ended up there. If you feel it was unseemingly of me to archive my talk page at that point, I'll pull it all back out. I just did what felt right at the time. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In reading your comments, it was looking like you thought I was demanding that you archive the discussion, which was totally the reverse of my intent in what I said. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regards the issues still left, um. I've stated it quite a few times now and you constantly seem to either ignore it, or not appreciate it, which is fair enough, maybe I'm not communicating it well. I'll have one last try.

I saw you remove items from Netk's talk page, and found this puzzling. I then asked you if you had asked his permission to do so. Now, from my end, rather than discuss that or pause and think, you went ahead and removed stuff from my talk page. Now, my chain of thought is this: if someone is asking me why I removed stuff from someone else's talk page, and if I had permission, I wouldn't go and remove stuff from their talk page. I'd sense there was an issue, and I'd talk it through. I'd work out that removing stuff from this user's talk page, after he had raised a query about a similar action elsewhere, might not be best prudent. That you constantly failed to address this point but rather pressed on in a matter that was pretty much resolved anyway then escalated the situation on my end. You constantly disregarded my point and talked over the top of me to the point that there was no point discussing the issue any more.

I hope that clarifies things from my end, and maybe now you can understand why I was so frustrated.

(ij) - Thank you for clarifying how you felt. And I think it does explain where our communication breakdown apparently began. I am going to intentionally not go and look over times in my and your contribution lists in responding. This is so that I can share with you how I felt, just as you have with me.
(ij con't) I think I explained why I was doing what I was doing, so I'll gloss over that for the moment. I was in the middle of working on Netk's talk page, when I realised that the edit summary I just typed would be rather useful to have for the other pages (I was wanting to be thorough, so as to not have anyone think that any favouritism was being shown. I even alphabetised the talk page examples by user on that sub-page). So I did a <shift>+<cursor> in order to copy it in the edit summary box. That apparently saved the page automatically (I'm still not sure how that happened.) I had a replacement already typed up in notepad (the link and the "feel free to revert" note), that I was planning to place on each talk page to let them know what happened, etc. (as I presume you eventually saw). In the middle of this, You left me a quick note asking whether I asked to remove information, before I did so, or something like that. I seem to recall leaving a quick comment letting you know that I had accidentally saved the page before finishing, and that the notice of what I was doing would be placed, so nothing to worry about. As far as I was concerned, you asked, I answered, and since (as I've noted since then) I wasn't violating anything (except for a premature save, which I immediately took care of), and since, while I continued to finish, you didn't seem to have any more comments on it, I thought it was resolved. The apparent vehemence I've received since then has been an utter surprise, to say the very least, though In reading what follows, I'm starting to see at least what the concerns were. Your main concern seems to be about a personal sense of ownership of your talk page. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem was, you didn't respond. The first edit you made to my talk page after I posted my query at yours was this. I'm sorry to pull diffs out like this, but perhaps this is where the problem truly lay. [19]. You state, "As far as I was concerned, you asked, I answered" but that's not how it played out. I asked a question, you then went on and removed stuff from my talk page. You didn't stop and talk to me. That's the simple point from where it all broke down. I fail to understand why you didn't answer my question before you removed stuff from my talk page. The rest of this is the fallout. I'm not certain I'd characterise it as a sense of personal ownership over my talk page, but if that's how you wish to view it, that's fair play. I thought of it as an issue of doing the right thing. If I were to remove something from anyone's talk page, I'd ask first. That just feels like the right thing to do. I guess I therefore extend that same courtesy to myself, but I don't see in that common courtesy a sense of personal ownership. I guess it's more a sense of context, that things are said in one context, like the context of a user talk page, that aren't the same when placed in another context, and maybe it's polite to check before removing words from their context. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think, as these are distinct points in several individual comments below, I'll defer to those answers rather than reiterating "en masse" here. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't generally edit other people's user pages in such a manner without checking first,

(ij) - can you give me a reference? or is this just a "common knowledge" thing that I'm apparently unaware of? - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's at WP:USER. But you indicate below that you don't see user talk pages as covered by that. That's perhaps a flaw in the guidance and I'm willing to concede that. I take it to apply to talk pages, but maybe it's not taken that way by you. At this point in the discussion it's redundant anyway. Had this conversation begun earlier this issue would have been hashed out a lot easier. I'm not going to search through for diffs at the village pump where people say stuff like, I was discussing this with so and so on their talk page, and after so and so agreed we decided to move the discussion here. To me it is a convention, it appears it isn't to you. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Internal editing of comments (besides formatting syntax, and possibly typos, but that varies from person to person), is generally frowned upon. Simple blanking is generally frowned upon. I moved the comments. I didn't edit them internally, and I didn't just blank them. And I also left a comment on each page letting it be known what I was doing (and reminding everyone that reversion is possible, and of course they were welcome to do so). I feel that I was following the convention. That said, I also think I understand your perspective. To you (I think), it may have felt like page blanking, which of course, would be a "bad idea". I don't think it was, since "moving sections" is not equal to "blanking". (We do it in articles all the time.) Our issue here isn't the action, but the communication breakdown that followed after it, I think. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

and whilst not all users are overly bothered, some are. I guess I'm one. I tried to raise concerns, but you seemed to brush them aside,

(ij) So, what I saw as responding and attempting to clarify, you saw as "brushing aside" your concerns? - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. You response was secondary to other actions which brushed aside my initial question. I asked you if you asked permission to remove stuff from a user's page. Your next action was to remove stuff from my page, hence my colouring of it as disregarding me. Probably this is the point where I should have walked away, or one of us should, but we didn't, we kept going at it and that's definitely something I'll be learning from. We never really got past those initial impressions. You felt you had resolved the issue, I felt you hadn't. I'm disappointed that I didn't step back and walk away, but I'm also aware enough to know these things happen, by which I mean that sometimes that doesn't happen and the situation escalates. And it's always the innocuous things that start it off. I suppose people are so busy avoiding the bear traps they miss the little thorns. And I guess every now and again those thorns have poison tips. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify "I should have walked away"/"step back and walk away"? And I think the rest is partially a result of typed communication, in which emotion can only be guessed at (hence why chatrooms/messengers require emoticons... Perhaps Wikipedia should have its own emoticon designs. (I've seen some users using ones of their own design.) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

and appeared to paint my actions as perhaps unhelpful. That didn't appear to me to be politic, since it's not clear your actions were helpful.

(ij) which actions? The only time I recall commenting on how helpful something was, was that I was uncertain if your choice to arbitrarily revert everyone's talk page was "helpful". Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. But I would have preferred that each would be allowed to make their own choice, rather than you make it for them. I guess to turn the question around, did you leave them a note explaining your purpose in the auto-reversion, as I did when I made the change? Honestly I wonder if some of them wouldn't have been more happy to have the discussion moved from their decentralised talk pages, and unified in one location. I doubt we'll know, especially since any answer now will be coloured by yours and my long discussion. Out of all of this, that arbtrary reversion was the only thing that made me "double-take". And if anyone asked me to revert the page for them, do you honestly believe I would not have? I seriously don't think I have acted like an ogre in any way here, though it's would seem that you seem to feel so. My intention (as stated) was to help. And what I did is not only not unprecedented, but even has been suggested, in order to calm a tense situation. It's not "airing dirty laundry", it's "getting it all out in the open". Otherwise, fear festers, and people start to act in ways that they likely would not under other circumstances. Netk, apparently had good intentions, and that's all been/being resolved. And except for this discussion, it would seem that the hurt feelings have been pretty much healed over. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is all areas where we are going to have to agree to disagree. You make a good point that maybe I should have left a note when I reverted your removals, but I haven't seen anyone complain yet. Your point regarding dirty linen and out in the open is subjective. I hope you'll agree with me it's possible people could have taken offence. As to your actions being suggested, yes, perhaps they are. That said, we also just had a huge arb-com case where someone tried the same thing and it blew up into a case that arb-com had to tackle. So maybe it doesn't always work, and maybe I had that in my head. I've certainly never seen it applied to user talk pages before. I don't doubt that Netk had good intentions. Mind, maybe I should reconsider involving myself in these issues. I'm clearly no good at handling disputes. No matter how many times I edit my comments, I still seem to cause offence. The weird thing was, WP:AGF is supposed to take care of that. People aren't supposed to read anything other than the purest meaning, but as this situation proves, that's not always the case. It's quite clear it's possible to be civil and assume good faith and still engage in a row. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. And I would like to state, that I think if you decide to "pull away" from dispute resolution, you do yourself, and moreso Wikipedia, a great dis-service. Communication breakdowns are going to happen. Even the bestest of best friends have them. It's how we deal with them after they happen which shows ability and character. And personally, I think you're doing fine. So don't let this series of discussion cause you to doubt yourself. Just do what you've been doing in sincerity and good faith, and I think you'll be fine. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

People had been coming to me with issues, I had been trying to sort them as even handedly as possible. If you had a problem with my handling, I would have appreciated a note.

(ij) - Excluding the interaction between you and me, I cannot think of any time I have had a problem with your attempts at dispute resolution, etc. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair play. I think the part where you removed the issue Brian had raised with me that I hadn't as yet responded to led me to believe you weren't convinced by my handling. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see how that happened. I moved it because it was another comment as a part of the ongoing discussion (my previous "transparancy" comment). But I can totally see how it could seem like I was "taking it out of your hands" (even though I was inviting everyone to comment). My apologies, that was never my intention. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, you stated that you responded on my talk page, but you didn't. Not at my end. You carried on with what you were doing, rather than pause for thought.

(ij) - I did, as noted above. But it sounds like it wasn't the response that you were hoping for. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't, per above. Hmmm. Okay, maybe I see where this is all falling apart. You figure the note you left about unifying the discussion was note enough? Okay, fair play. it all makes sense. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (bewildered) I am not sure how to take the last comment. Understandingly, or frustratedly sarcastic? (It all depends on whether "Right" and "now" are accented.) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And every comment you made after that looked to me like you were riding roughshod over me.

(ij) - I understand the feeling, and was starting to feel that in turn. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think I said somewhere above that I feel I wasn't getting my points across clearly enough. I apologise for that. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I get what you were trying to do, but that doesn't mean you can ignore people's concerns.

(ij) - I wasn't ignoring yor concerns, as I hope you can now see. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate it. We sure spent a lot of time talking across each other and not communicating. You seemed to me to adopt a patronising tone, which you assure me was not intended, I seemed to you to be overly vehement, which again, was not intended. I was trying to convey my lack of understanding as to why you were removing things from my talk page. That we weren't communicating well escalated the situation to a point where I figured it was best to walk away. I could not work out a way to convey what I wanted in a manner you would accept. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "We sure spent a lot of time talking across each other and not communicating." I hope you don't take it the wrong way when I say I laughed when reading that. More of a relief laugh, I think, than anything. I think we're finally understanding where and how this broke down. And besides that, I guess it just struck me funny. As for the rest, first, I rarely look for someone to "accept" what I am saying, I merely would like them to "understand". I'm a firm believer in free will, and you're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others to do the same. (And for such "in-house" situations at Wikipedia, we have the 5 pillars). Second, if ever you are puzzled or confused by anything I may have said or done, ask. If you still are confused or puzzled, ask me to continue to clarify. AFAIK, I've always responded to sincere requests for clarity (and even a few obviously not-so-sincere requests, but then I tend to hope for the best : ) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to acknowledge that you were not best placed to remove stuff from my talk page that did not involve you.

(ij) - Well that was never brought up before. "that did not involve" me? Please pardon my shock at that statement. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? I don't get what shocks you about that. I simply don't get how you see that you could remove stuff from my talk page that you were not a party to. Like, if you posted a message to my tallk page, I'd have no issue with you removing it, but where the message wasn't from you, and wasn't to you, I'm not sure that you're best placed removing it. Some of the issues were still live, and so I think it's reasonable to wonder whether people would feel confused as to what had happened to them. Does that make more sense now? Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's only partially how I took that statement, and I'm still not certain if I took it incorrectly. It sounded to me like you were saying (as I mention below) that I was "sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong". Which to me was a rather shocking statement. Since I feel that (except for certain isolated concerns of the foundation) that is entirely contrary to the wikipedia concept. As for others' confusion, I felt the note on the page was to clarify that. Anyone reading that page would find that link, and should then instantly find what they were looking for. (It's done all the time, etc etc.) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The standard way of doing these things is by inviting people to a central area. Let the discussion grow organically. Provide diffs if you like. You can move an issue to a sub-page, yes I have seen that done before,

(ij) All of which, I believe I did, and I believe I did them in good faith. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not, and never have questioned that your actions were in good faith. That doesn't mean I can't, in good faith, raise concerns, and in good faith, expect those concerns to be discussed. I had already posted a note to the effect that we should make the discussion at the WikiProject the central one, so I got a bit baffled by the talk page removals too. I think had you started by moving the WikiProject discussion I'd have seen where it was all going. Not that that matters. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, concerns and criticisms are at the heart of WP:AGF. I also don't think I didn't/haven't responded to you. But I think we've figured such things out now? My original intention was to do all the pastes "at once" (I had all the pages open in edit mode, intending to hit "save all" in succession), in order to hopefully remove the possibility of confusion of a "work-in-progress" (everyone would see the various talk page changes "at once", etc). But because you were "online" and "active", I had to wait with some (like my talk page, and I did the wikiproject talk page at the very last), and I think I missed some, as well, in trying to simultaneously respond to you. For example, I know I missed several references to the "Nuklon" page moves, which was where most of this "mess" (as Netk called it) started. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

and I have to admit I found your tone patronising there,

(ij) It wasn't meant to be so. It was (and is) rather as a result of shock at the responses I was getting. I think one of the most disturbing was the (I don't know how to else describe it) petulency at the upper and lower case "b" typo. (Something like: "And I missed where you apologised for misspelling my name") I hope you can see how that appeared. I addressed it, and obviously never meant to hurt your feelings by a typo, and I hope I conveyed that. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's probably not much to do here but apologise. I think what concerned me was that the links wouldn't reach my user page and then we started exchanging comments so quick it started to come out wrong. I initially meant it humorously but the conversation disintegrated so quickly that it became more than it was meant to be. Another sign I should have walked away earlier. A part of me is going to be very glad when Mr Griswold becomes an admin because I hope it means a lot of these issues won't land at my door. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You can, of course, choose how you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, but as I said above, I think removing yourself from dispute resolution does a great dis-service to yourself and Wikipedia. I think I explained it well enough up top, so I won't reiterate. (Though, if you would like me to further clarify... : ) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

but convention is that you check with someone before you edit their user pages.

(ij) There is a difference between a user page, and a user talk page. And by convention, we edit user talk pages all the time. Just as you did when you left me this note. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Also, leaving messages on a talk page is different to removing them, I hope you can agree. I remember when Radiant! left, and there were messages removed from Radiant's talk page that we decided were best left there for Radiant to remove. I guess I just have a different convention to you. To me, the user page guidance applies. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I commented on this above as well. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You can reply here, I'm watching this page.

(ij) Nod, and I am doing so. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. I'm assuming humour. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it was sincere. Though I have to honestly say, that considering at the time I was strongly feeling your "vehemence"about editing your talk page at all, this felt like a slap across the face. I decided at the time, however, to hope that it wasn't, and attempt to "move forward", since bringing up another examples of "hurt feelings" didn't seem like a good idea at the time (more fuel for the fire, as it were, I think we had plenty, without adding more). I comment about it now because I didn't want you to believe something that wasn't true, and (more importantly) I'm somewhat convinced that things are not as "tense" for you as they may have been previously in this discussion. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I've managed to convey things from my end, and I sincerely hope you can understand them. To be honest, as far as I'm concerned the issue is over and done with, but I pretty much saw the issue as done with before your actions. Whether that was the case I guess we'll never know, but what's done is done. Best to just shake hands and move on. Hiding Talk 10:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made your feelings clear.
First, let me apologise. I should have guessed how possessive you felt about your talk page when you last asked me why I unified our discussion there on another occasion. (I note that you archived the elemental discussion, of which that was a part.) I don't intend to make that mistake again. I'm sorry your feelings apparently were hurt because I edited your talk page, and left you a note, rather than engaging in a discussion first (which I don't think would have been feasible with all the parties involved, but that's "neither here nor there", anymore). I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt when I typoed your username. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt when you felt that I was somehow deprecating your ability at dispute resolution. I'm sorry that you felt that I was somehow ignoring your concerns. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt because I was apparently sticking my nose in where you felt it didn't belong. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt for all of these reasons, and any others that I may have missing, or not understood. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean to say about the archive of the elementals thing,I thought that thread was dead, is it still alive? I also think you seem to be making the unified discussion thing out into something I didn't feel it was. I was merely confused as to what you were doing, but that was a dead issue by this point. Whether you should have discussed anything with me regarding my talk page is your call. Your choice of terms in colouring this aren't ones I would choose, but thems the breaks. I apologise that it has got to the point where you feel beholden to proffer numerous apologies, especially ones for things neither said nor done. Wherever I gave the impression that was necessary, I want to strike it and apologise. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Same here, and striking out a line above that I personally think should be un-said. (You say something similar below.) I think it would be a shame if either of us decided to avoid each other's posts due to this. My opinion of you as an editor hasn't changed. Just because we may disagree, doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss. (Honestly out of contrary discussion typically comes the best results : ) - That said, of course you are free to do as you will in this. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the elementals, until we have finished the merge, and making the list (nether of which has been done at all), as far as I know, it's ongoing. I have to admit, that I've been trying to finish "other" tasks before jumping into that one, so I haven't even much started on it. There are a bunch of comics' related projects that I have on my "back burner" that I haven't gotten to yet. Sigh @ only so many hours in a day. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I NEVER intended to hurt your feelings. And I am sincerely sorry that you somehow feel that that was my intention. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair play. I certainly felt there were issues that needed discussing, and you just as certainly felt there weren't, and maybe that's where it all boils down. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • At first glance I would disagree with that charaacterisation, but atm, I'm not certain. Could you clarify? - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, up until now, always felt that you were an editor who's actions were typically rather thought-filled, and even tempered. I have been in disbelief, shocked, dismayed, flabbergasted, stunned, surpised, and honestly feeling a bit hurt and insulted myself by this discussion. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess that makes two of us. I repeat my apology again, for any and all offence caused. That was never my intention. My intention was to get to the bottom of what you were doing and discuss it. From my point of view, without saying too much but hoping you give me the benefit of the doubt, I felt what you were doing could backfire. Still, again, that's neither here nor there. I should have walked away and left you to it. I guess, had you simply discussed it with me first it might have all been sorted, but I also concede there was no onus on you to do so. Since you acknowledge I was already attempting to resolve the dispute, and that you had no problems with my attempts, I'm a little confused as to why you wouldn't want to discuss it with me, but there's no law says you have to. I guess you saw "Moved several related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (Feel free to revert if you wish.)" as explanation enough, where as I was maybe looking for, look, how about this, I've had a think and I've moved all these discussions over here, in the hope that this will get all the issues out in the open and we can... but I don't know. This probably gets us nowhere. I guess being live the same time as you I was reacting to things in situ rather than seeing the grand picture. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My intent was never to not include you. It's that I just didn't realise that I had to say anything for you to feel included. I thought that was automatically presumed. And I don't know how it somehow was construed that I didn't want to discuss with you. (I'm not exactly sure what you wanted discussed, or when this discussion was to have occurred.) Part of my confusion is that I think I'm fairly known to someone who likes to discuss. And what really confuses me on this, is that you've been a part of many of the discussions I've been involved in (some of which are still ongoing). So yes, I'm confused. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You offer to "shake hands" and "move on". As I said in my last edit summary to your talk page, the ball's in your court, so if that is what you wish, that is perfectly ok with me. If you continue the discussion, I'll respond, if you don't wish to, I'll respect that. If you wish this remainder of the discussion removed from sight, I'll do so, else I'll likely leave it here until I feel that my talk page has become too long. The choices are yours. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I ain't fussed what you do with the discussion. All I can offer is that I'd just as soon sort this out than not. I guess that means you're in possession now. I'm off to bed now, so, and I'd best clarify this is meant jokingly, but also in a bid to avoid any more communication breakdowns, don't be offended if you don't hear from me a while. Hiding Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if you're asking my preference... I'd like to finish the discussion to the point where we've eliminated confusion, but to stop before we're just restating everything with a smile, just to restate : ) - As for the discussion itself, my preference would be that "when we've decided that confusion has been eliminated", you recall your archive of the discussion, paste this to it, and rearchive as you normally would (transparency, and ease of reading. Who knows, maybe someone else may read this and learn about communication. I'm sure we both have : ) - I intend to call up your archive of the several discussions and paste it (with this discussion as well) to a sub-page talk archive the way I did with another long set of discussions I've had (and because I do think that the discussion has become long enough for archiving). This way we both have a unified copy. That's my preference, what you do, is of course, up to you. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


I keep thinking about your comment that you felt I didn't want to discuss with you. So I've attempting to build a timeline. I hope it helps.

  • the accidental save:
  • The "simultaneous" save page on several talk pages:
  • My response to your query:

Note that from 19:05 - 19:30 these are all my contributions (though as I am not an admin, I no longer have the edit history from the deleted page). I have to say, I don't remember seeing the yellow bar (talk page notice) for your first comment, so I'm not sure at what point I saw your notice. I had quite a few windows open, and I was doing a lot of switching back and forth.

Your first comment:

After that:

  • I removed the copy of the discussion on my page, since I responded on yours:
  • I added from my talk page (I realised that I should probably check my own talk page.):
  • And then finally the wikiProject:

I note that your next comment was at 19:32. That was apparently a rather busy minute, since as I look at that diff, my response to you was already on your talk page.

From there, I guess the attempts at discussion began. (With my next contribution, also being my next response to you, at 20:13: [31]).

Though I seem to remember having this weird 2 page discussion with you, simultaneously on the now-deleted page, and your talk page.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 10:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's much more value in going over this. I just wrote a really long reply, but I've blanked it. We're in mountaineering equipment at the top of a molehill. Like I say, I should have walked away, per dispute resolution. The issue started to get personal very quickly. I'm not sure why. I don't think it matters now though. Anyway, sorry to tie up your time over this issue. Hiding Talk 13:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not upset, at this point, just still somewhat confused. Part of me wishes I could have seen the now blanked response whatever it was (I guess I always have the wont to understand : )
And at this point I guess I'll not know what your response(s) are to mine in the discussion.
In any case, I'll respect your wish to now "end" the discussion, if that is what you wish. I'll wait a day and then archive this as I outlined above. - jc37 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see this is still here, I don't know if you are wanting me to reply to this or not, but... Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was in the middle of several (a dozen or so?) rather lengthy discussions. I guess I haven't prioritised them lately, and was doing some mainspace editing, and trying to catch up on CfD : ) - jc37 20:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're still confused over, but I'll try and go round it one more time. I think we just got our wires crossed. You might want to take a look at WP:VANDAL Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. That's probably where I was coming from, although I couldn't source the page itself at the time, I've already stated I felt this was a guideline. From there it all fell apart because to my eye you removed a load of comments from talk pages, and it wasn't entirely clear to me what you were doing. I think had you stopped what you were doing and discussed the issue with me when you saw my message, the mess might have been avoided, but like I say, this is just going round in circles. My references to walking away were meant to refer to the dispute you and me found ourselves in, I wish I had had the sense to walk away earlier than I did. It was clear that you were pushing ahead with what you were doing, so any attempt at discussion became cramped by that, and I should have just bitten my tongue. My walking away and letting what you were doing continue would have equally allowed the situation resolve itself amicably. I hope that maybe now clears up any confusion. Take it easy. Hiding Talk 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "I think had you stopped what you were doing and discussed the issue with me when you saw my message..." - please note this diff: [32] (as I noted above), which you did respond to 2 minutes later [33], but at this point, I'm guessing that you may have forgotten it "in the shuffle".
  • Also as I noted above, I didn't "delete", I "moved" (with a courtesy link of where they were "moved" to), which obviously isn't vandalism. But I do understand the confusion. In the end, I think this was a mis-communication that "found legs". I don't know if "disengaging" would have helped clarify the mis-communication (typically discussion is required for understanding), but I think I understand your thought. Anyway, thanks for the clarification, and have a great day : ) - jc37 20:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it followed this edit, [34] which made the whole thing redundant, and is my point. I also notice you've just moved other comments I have made here to a talk page where I hadn't posted them. Given that I've already expressed my concern at you doing this, I find it a little frustrating. I'm also disturbed that for the sake of transparency and context you don't indicate that you are copying such posts. Still, hope you have a great day. Hiding Talk 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (boggle) - I was doing as you requested? I suppose I could have left a note on your talk page as well (as I did on his), but as you requested the move... Anyway, you know where it is now, I presume? As for that diff, looking ath the timeline above, do you see that I wouldn't have seen your comment until after I opened a new page? (Though as I mentioned above, I don't actually recall at what point I noticed your comment.) 22 is between 05 and 26/27. - jc37 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah well, then you misunderstood me. I meant that the comment you left on the cfd page could perhaps be moved to the cfd talk page. Perhaps my comment was a little ambiguous, although I'm not clear your discussion equals my comments, but it looks like communication between us is still bedevilled by misreadings. I stand by the idea that it wouldn't have hurt to have contextualised the discussion though. As to your other point, as your comment made clear at the time, you had already seen my comment, so I don't see any value in discussing that you might not have seen it. But like I say, this is getting nowhere. I get the feeling you aren't going to see my point of view on this at all, so I think it's best to call it a day. Hiding Talk 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "As your comment made clear at the time..." So I commented, but wait, I didn't comment? I think you're right. This is obviously not getting anywhere. I even took the time to list out the timeline, and all the edits to show what happened. The bottom line seems to be snubbed feelings of someone who apparently mis-read a situation. Your point, as I read it, is that you feel I was wrong in moving comments to another page. And further you seem to think I ignored you somehow, even though I've shown that I didn't. I don't even want to analyse the issue with the typo of your username. I've apologised that your feelings were hurt. I've attempted to even find out what your issues were, and have tried to help you understand. I think I've bent over backwards to try to aid in your understanding. At this point I seriously wonder it's possible to assuage your hurt ego, and/or clear up your misconceptions. But that said... I'm still here.. Feel free to continue to misread. Feel free to continue to accuse me of ignoring you in a discussion of thousands of words (not counting the discussion you've already archived, we're at over 7,000 words so far), even in a situation in which you said that I was not required to consult with you. Feel feel free to "call it a day", and continue to bear these un-resolved feelings. Whichever you would like to do. In any case, as I said, I'm still here, happily contributing to this thing we all call Wikipedia. Despite what you apparently believe, I do wish you a great day. As I said awhile back, I hope that whatever is truly bothering you, resolves itself in a positive fashion for you. - jc37 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Jc, I'm sorry, but if you feel the situation here is that you need to "assuage (my) hurt ego" then clearly there are problems. I'm not here over an affront to my ego. I'm here because I'm trying to get across the point that it isn't good practise to remove comments from user talk pages. Perhaps the reason why we are so clearly misreading each other is that I'm here trying to get you to see that point and you are trying to guess my mood. I think there's guidance somewhere that we comment on the issue, not the user. I'm not sure what on earth you seem to mean by stating that "Despite what you apparently believe, I do wish you a great day." Perhaps you could either show me where I bluntly made the point that I don't believe that to be true, or simply apologise for the lack of grace in the comment. However I slighted you, I am truly sorry, but my underlying point is still that it's bad practise to remove comments from user talk pages. We don't do it in arbitration cases, in requests for comments, in any other instances. Copy, yes. Provide diffs, yes. Remove, not really. Hiding Talk 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's interesting that you now are just focused on the moving ("removing", in your terms), now, and not on the fact that you felt you should have been consulted, since I think I've shown that I responded to you in good time.
  • As for the rest, think I'll just point at the discussion above, including: "and whilst not all users are overly bothered, some are. I guess I'm one. I tried to raise concerns, but you seemed to brush them aside,". Though I'm sure that there are more examples throughout.
  • Honestly, I am seriously wondering if this discussion is doing any good, at this point, or if it's just "continuing to continue". I understand that you feel I was wrong in moving (unifying, actually) the discussions. I disagree with you. I'll note this comment: "That's perhaps a flaw in the guidance and I'm willing to concede that", and suggest perhaps your interpretation isn't correct:
  • "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so."
  • Notice how in both examples it makes a clear distinction between user pages and talk pages. And finally, I once again remind you that they were all welcome to revert their own pages (whether I reminded them of it or not).
  • I wonder... When you decided to move a discussion from CfD (I'm calling it "moving", rather than "removing", though in the discussion above, you seem to prefer "removing"), were you thinking of this discussion at all? It would seem that you did exactly what you seem to wish to tell me is "not good practice", which would seem to be a "double standard". In addition, as I stated in the discussion, I had intended to leave that discussion there and start new ones at the places suggested by those who commented. I'll "feel free to revert", in this case, just as I suggested to you in the case of your talk page. Oh, and just for the sake of communication, I'm not upset in any way, just bemused at this point.
  • Anyway... Besides that, do you still have further concerns? - jc37 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'm fairly bemused as well. I have tried to call it quits quite a few times but you kept posting statements as to being confused, and so I kept trying to clear it up when it's clear I should have just left alone. We obviously aren't going to agree. The point about cfd is somewhat different, on those you get a whacking big template that says don't edit, but again, you'll probably feel that you weren't editing within the template so that makes it okay, and to be honest, I can't contradict that view. We just have different opinions on the spirit of Wikipedia. I absolutely have no idea where this discussion is going either, and each time we get into it it drifts from whatever the original point was. You're absolutely right that I've focussed on the moving this time, because to be honest I have no idea what the original issue was. I think it was simply that I was asking you a question and it never got cleared up, something which I humbly should have let go. You seem to feel yourself blameless, and I'll respect that. I apologise for tying up so much of your time with this. For my part in this I truly am sorry. This seems to be one instance where I for one couldn't walk away, which is wrong. Rest assured I'm putting that right. I've certainly learnt I can't do dispute resolution, which is something I should thank you for. Anyway, fair play. Take it easy, and see you on another page where the weather is sunnier. Hiding Talk 11:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reading that back, it's still a little harsh, and I have no idea where it's coming from. I don't mean to say you see yourself as blameless, and I hope you'll disregard that point. Maybe you had it right and my ego is hurting. Who knows. Who cares. Next time I think I'll seek a mediator. Or a therapist. Cheers. Hiding Talk 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Adeline André

I'm having trouble added this AfD to today's list. Can I get a little help? DesertSky85451 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I tried to do step 1 from memory. Whoops. I'll go back to cutting and pasting to cutting and pasting the correct templates again. DesertSky85451 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Hiding you want to know my real name???Brian Boru is awesome 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


I keep adding Wikipedia:articles for deletion/List of Baby Blues books to the afd list, but every time it never shows up on the actual page. Can you please try to add it to the October 11, 2006 log?--B&W Anime Fan 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


I have begun to put together a proposal for Wikitrivia, and I would appreciate any input you can give me. --Chris Griswold ( ) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If it's going to be for stuff we transwiki across from Wikipedia, it has to be GFDL compliant, which means we can't sell the content. Oh, just found WikiTrivia. Hmm. I've found m:WikiTrivia, but I'm not sure that's related. I think the best place to discuss this might be on the Foundation-L mailing list, the proposals system looks like it has ground to a halt. Probably best to revive the old proposal, and find out who owns that website and what is going on with it. The expiration looks like it is on 25th May next year, [35]. I don't know if it can be grabbed, I'm not up on how you get a domain name someone else has. Maybe a domain name sitter type person? Hiding Talk 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't Wikipedia sell content to sites like --Chris Griswold ( ) 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, quick answer, no. We have an arrangement, I think, but I see where you are going. Um, I'm one of those people who ignores the answers tie up, so I'm not sure what it is. I think they re-use our content per the GFDL, but there's a donation which comes the other way in exchange. There's politics involved, to avoid advertising which many people feel Wikipedia shouldn't do. I never made my mind up on that, to be honest. Hiding Talk 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's all I was basing that section on. --Chris Griswold ( ) 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wally West

"I just realized that I added to the confusion by moving Wally West (Flash) (one of NetK's moves) to Flash (Wally West) when it should have been moved back to Wally West, since he's had more than one code name. Can an admin take care of this? Thanks! CovenantD 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)"

Would you fix, it, Hiding? — Lesfer (t/c/@) 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man :) — Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tintin stuff

User:Hiding/X1. Oh, wow! Love it. I have a Tintin/Herge biography book squirelled away somewhere. I guess you might have it as well, but if not, could I be of help? I've nosed around the Tintin pages, and was stunned to find Tintin in Thailand and the other parodies, as well as the description of the anarchist book where 'Tintin' and 'Haddock' work to topple the British government. I've read all the books, and the Jo, Zette and Jocko books, been to the Tintin museum in Brussels (well, technically the The Belgian Center For Comic Strips), and got the T-shirts (lots of them)! :-) Carcharoth 23:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Knock yourself out. At the minute I've just merged all the stub character articles together. I have made a start on Captain Haddock, I was going to put Tintin in the main article and have the rest described in the supporting article, which is what this will become. Whether I ever get further than tinkewring, I don't know. But feel free to play. Hiding Talk 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Hiding, I'm going to answer on the ATT talk page just so that everything is together. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Sweet as... Hiding Talk 10:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Cigar box.jpg
Announcement: It's an administrator!

Hiding, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

Minor Edits

What counts as a minor edit? 'Cause I clicked on it to make sure those were mine. Brian Boru is awesome 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • What do you mean, you clicked on it to make sure those are yours? For what counts as a minor edit see Help:Minor edit. Basically you should only click the box if the edit you are performing is a simple tipo or grammar error. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it literally means "daughter corporation", hence subsidiary. Yours, >Radiant< 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Put comments warning people on their talk pages.

Hi, just a note to remind you that it's expected to put a comment warning people off from bad behaviour on their talk pages, not just on an article talk page. (Some of the later steps off remidies require this to have happened.) --Barberio 13:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*. 2005 just deleted my request for him to remain civil from his talk page[36], and shows little sign of reducing the hostility. I also worry that it looks like he's taken ownership of Wikipedia:External Links. Can you try discussing this with him to try and calm him down? --Barberio 22:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't tend to issue warnings to user talk pages anymore, I find they are removed and only serve to inflame the situation. I'm not sure how it will be taken if I have a word with 2005, but I'll have a go. Hiding Talk 14:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor review.

Hi Hiding. Being that you were one of the first people that I encountered on Wikipedia (and the first I had an editing dispute with) I was wondering if you'd be willing to take the time to leave me feedback (good or bad) on my editor review. I recently had a failed RfA (mostly on experience concerns) and another admin has offered to nominate me the next time I want to give it a try. I would be very grateful for your opinions on how I have improved my editing and what I still need to improve on to be able to make it through an RfA successfully. Thanks. - Mike | Talk 22:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a lot for your comments, Hiding :-). Even if you didn't feel you had much to say, I thought it would be ineresting to find out anyway. I'll let you know the next time I put an RfA up. Cheers, - Mike | Talk 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No problems. I'm glad my limited comments were of use. :) Hiding Talk 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Haha, Ok I'll leave it up there. You got there first, anyhow :-). Just felt the need to add Calvin there as IMO it's the best comics article I've seen. - Mike | Trick or Treat 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No problemmo. Although I think the Tintin one is pretty damn good. I sweat blood on that. :) Hiding Talk 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess we all are most attached to the ones we spent the most time on. Calvin and Hobbes was already an FA when I came to Wikipedia, but I've spent lots of time improving it as well. If you look at my editcount, you'll see that I've made nearly 200 edits to that article and 150 to the talk page. - Mike | Trick or Treat 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I remember, I think that's when we first crossed swords. Once I worked out you were on the level, I pretty much left you to it at Calvin and Hobbes. But you certainly did good work there. :) Hiding Talk 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Article has changed a lot since then. Possibly can use a bit of farming out into sub-articles as the page size is 74k last I checked. I'm not really sure how to go about that though. - Mike | Trick or Treat 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Summary style might help you a bit. I'm off to bed in a couple of minutes so I can't be any more help than that. Sorry. I'm trying to do something similar to Tintin at the moment. Hiding Talk 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Any reason this is protected? I need to make some edits to it -- namely, linking to our specific assesment scale and adding the importance scale in. - Mike | Trick or Treat 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm actually working it all up at the minute. It's protected because it transcludes really heavily across Wikipedia. I should be ready to go live in about half an hour. Hiding Talk 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll go ahead and rate those articles that I've assesed then. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on making it smaller, because right now it is huge. Some ideas for this can be found at {{ME-project}} ("hidden" bar) or {{Film}} (just smaller). It is also miss-aligned, I don't know how to fix that. Cbrown1023 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It shuldn't really be that huge, I can't see that many articles where all fields would be used but I'll have a look at the hiding it trick. I can't fix the misalignment either, that's beyond me, I can't see it my end, running Firefox. I know IE is buggy with some css stuf but I'm not that clued up to be able to fix it. All I did was pinch the code from the Firefly template. Hiding Talk 11:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Roly Poly

I saw you protected Roly Poly today. I was thinking of writing up a article on the Roly Poly Sandwich Shop's. And I was wondering if I should write a stub in my user space then ask you to unprotect the page or can any admin do that? Whispering 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, get it written up in your user space, and give me a shout when you are ready to move it across and I'll unprotect it, and you can just cut and paste it over. Seems the best way. The page apparently seems targeted by vandals. If you can't get hold of me get another admin to do it, and point them to this discussion. Hiding Talk 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I have a stub in my sandbox is it long enough to last or should I work on it a bit more? Whispering 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For attempting to help resolve a lengthy and often confusing communication breakdown, and as a nudge, in the hope that you might continue to help in other such instances on Wikipedia : ) - jc37 19:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

{{speechless}} Hiding Talk 20:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering

How can I edit your "Comics by region" template?? I want to add one country in there.--Check two you 26 October 2006

  • Just work out where it would go in the template and then paste <tr><td style="text-align:center; font-size:90%;">[[INSERT COUNTRY HERE]]</td></tr> in that place, for example if it goes above Mexico, place the cursor at the start of the Mexico line, press return and paste the line above in and edit the country to get the right name. That should do it. Hiding Talk 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see but can you give me the link to edit the template?? Thanks.--Check two you 28 October 2006

Naming conventions (comics)

I see you dropped the idea for using publication as a phrase. Are we still using comics in the first instance then? To be honest I quite liked using publication. Hiding Talk 20:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mention that. First, my comments about it are here. However, I literally was thinking the last couple days that perhaps I should put "publication" back in. It's now done, please check it out. I also (hopefully) clarified a few things about usage. - jc37 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I like it how it is now. Hopefully I can finish up my Tintin stuff this week and then crack on with maintaining comics articles from then on. If I don't get bogged down in admin stuff. I did look for your comments on the issue as I remembered you'd made them but I couldn't turn them up anywhere, obviously didn't look hard enough. :) Hiding Talk 08:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been double checking for typos and "sense" and such. Going to give it one more "run-through" after posting this. - jc37 11:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
K, finished the run-through. Let me know if you spot any errors (glaring or otherwise). - jc37 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


FYI: List of comics spin-offs. - jc37 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Danny Phantom

Here's a good test case for WP:NCC:

See the history of: Danny Phantom (character).

Since I am not an admin, and couldn't delete redirect pages, I chose to:

However, based on the various naming conventions under television and comics ("hero shows" apparently default to WP:NCC usage), what probably should have happened:

I don't think that there is enough in the Danny Phantom character article for the creation of a Danny Fenton character article at this time.

Your input is welcome. - jc37 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I agree with how you see it as above, so I'll have a look at the histories and see what needs deleting and moving and if there's any history needs merging and do it all. Hiding Talk 08:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok. Suggestion: Make sure you change the link in Template:DPNav, first after the move, it'll make fixing the redirects easier : ) - jc37 12:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, what's your opinion on an article name like: Samantha "Sam" Manson? - jc37 12:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the main I stand by the idea that redirects are free, and since Samantha Manson and Sam Manson both redirect to Samantha "Sam" Manson, I don't have an absolute opinion on the name either way. The common name convention would apply if there was a dispute, but I don't know enough about the character to know what the common name would be. There's nothing in the move logs, but looking at the page histories, it looks like Samantha Manson was the first page, and info there was merged to Danny Phantom in Dec 2004. An anon then started Sam Manson in 2005, and this too was instantaneously merged to Danny Phantom, although the merge guidance wasn't followed either time. Then Samantha "Sam" Manson was started in October 2005 and this time caught. The easiest thing might be to settle on one page name and when that's settled merge the histories into one. Hiding Talk 18:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I was just asking about whether having a quoted nickname in an article title was a good idea. On the show, she's called Sam, by everyone except occaisionally her parents. Awesome page history research, though. I wonder if it's worth merging the page histories, or are they all pretty much the same (copy/paste)? - jc37 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The GFDL requires the histories to be merged. Nicknames in quotation marks in an article name, I don't know, probably not the best idea, but it's not something I care about unless I have to. Based on what you are telling me, a move to Sam Morton should certainly be considered. Is it likely to be controversial? Hiding Talk 11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(Presuming you meant Sam Manson : )
And based on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (people)#Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens, I presume that that would be correct.
As for controversial, I honestly don't know. I wouldn't "think" so, but then, I'm finding that any comics/animation move may be potentially controversial. (See: Talk:List of comic book speedsters, and it's page history, to see a current example. Also, feel free to let me know if you feel I'm incorrect in my statements, I think you make the perfect "third party".)
Anyway, for now, let's finish the Danny Phantom move, and I guess we can go from there? - jc37 11:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Jc, it's not that I think you're wrong, it's just that I don't know enough about the subject to know otherwise. Like I say, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (people)#Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens, the common name applies. I don't know enough to know what the common name is, and I've never really been bothered to move pages based on the conventions unless it's necessary, they're only guidance not hard and fast rules that must be obeyed. With the Danny Phantom issue, I kinda agreed before I looked at the pages, which was bad, I know, and now I'm not clear why it matters which one goes where. Is there any reason to swap them around? I don't mind doing it, I just don't want to stir up a hornets nest. Sorry to backtrack, but like I say, I was nodding in agreement without looking. That's why I checked out all the Sam whatever her name is stuff so thoroughly. :) Hiding Talk 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"Jc, it's not that I think you're wrong..." - I'm not sure which of my statements that was referring to. please clarify?
As for Sam Manson, I've seen nearly every episode, and that's the name she goes by, as I mentioned above. So it shouldn't be controversial. I was/am just hesitant to say that it's won't be, because I have been constantly surprised by what people choose to create "controversy" about. But ignoring the "x"-factor of surprise, then no, it shouldn't be controversial. Though if you move hers for reasons of removing the quotes, you probably should do the same to Jasmine "Jazz" Fenton (even her parents call her "Jazz"). Hope this clarifies. - jc37 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

<re-indent> You said, "feel free to let me know if you feel I'm incorrect", so I said "it's not that I think you're wrong". The reason I ask about controversy is because if you believe it will be controversial then it has to be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. So if you're sure Samantha "Sam" Manson should be at Sam Manson, then I can move that. Would Jazz need admin assistance? Where would it move to? Hiding Talk 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1.) Oh, I was talking about the speedster discussion page, and was asking for your opinion on that. : )
2.) At Wikipedia requested moves? or at WP:COMIC's requested moves? Or did I get confused below? Is our requested moves just a "heads up" (a noticeboard) about the other one, rather than our own listing (which is what I was requesting below)?
3.) And yes, I'm sure about Sam being the most common.
4.) It would seem that Jazz is already at Jazz Fenton... I saw the other listing on the Navbox... (I think I was tired when I posted : )
Hope this clarifies. : ) - jc37 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1.) I haven't looked at the speedster page yet, sorry.
2.) I haven't looked at WP:RM in ages, but from memory all contentious moves should be listed there to attract the widest audience and build the strongest consensus. Whether that position has changed to allow WikiProjects their own processes I don't know, but you can guarantee that if you don't list it there someone will complain. I'm still unclear as to what you were asking me below regarding transclusion.
3 and 4, fair enough. I take that to mean Sam can be moved, but leave Jazz alone. Hiding Talk 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(#1) No worries. Actually, I am thinking that maybe it should be listed at WP:RM for the reasons you describe above.
(#2) - Yes, I was requesting our own process, with a link to it at WP:RM to make it obvious for anyone there. I think it's a good idea, but I agree that there is a possibility that "someone" may complain if we start our own process. I have no problem with the idea of discussing it "somewhere" in order to determine consensus. (Probably at WP:RM's talk page?)
(3&4) - yes. - jc37 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On the Danny Phantom issue, why wouldn't Danny Phantom (character) be at Danny Fenton? If the show is titled Danny Phantom, makes sense to put the show there, and if the character is Danny Fenton, then we don't have to disambiguate, and if we don't, we shouldn't. Hiding Talk 13:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Most common name per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (people)#Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens
  • If, eventually we have a Superman and Clark Kent situation, then both names should be available, though for right now, Danny Fenton should redirect to Danny Phantom
  • "Character" gets priority for the undisambiguated name over media types
  • Because it's the naming convention for WikiProject (television). (Not to mention that it's also WP:NCC : )
  • Also, as I was fixing links, I found it was rather common for people to use [[Danny Phantom]] to mean the character, rather than the show. I fixed those, but I wouldn't doubt that there will be more.
Hope that helps. - jc37 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not as hot on naming conventions as I probably should be, but is it established that "character" gets priority for the undisambiguated name over media types? Hiding Talk 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • However, we do have another option: Danny Phantom becomes a disambiguation page, with links to Danny Phantom (TV series), and Danny Phantom (Daniel Fenton). From what I can tell, this is the "correct" procedure, though when only 2 or 3 articles are involved, we can place a dab template at the top of the main page, instead. (See Kite, for example.) The latter is what I am suggesting. Think of it as if it was all one page, and we were going to do a split. I presume we wouldn't split the character information from Danny Phantom first, we would split the media information first, thus creating Danny Phantom (TV series) - jc37 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Builder Award

Builder-award.png The Builder Award
Not for any particular action -- and I have to say I disagree with many of yours -- but for sheer, bulldog willingness to get in there day after day and chew the policy bone. John  Reid 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

{{speechless}} Hiding Talk 13:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves

I think, since we have an updated naming convention, and more than a few pages may need to be moved, at least temporarily we should have Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Requested moves. The way that Wikipedia:Requested moves seems to do it, it to have Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current transcluded onto it. "Current" being the actual requests. Perhaps we should clarify that. So for us that would be: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Requested moves/Current requests.

This should proactively deal with potential "move wars" in a more process-related, and civil way. (And prevents us from unnecesarily bloating the "main" requested moves page, though we should place a link on it, obviously.)

What do you think? - jc37 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the notice board might be a better place to transclude it to, might be worth getting Chris' input on this too. Hiding Talk 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with the idea of using the notice board, I just didn't think that to be on the notice board template, it had to be a sub-page of it. In any case, I really have no preference to where and how it's placed, just was thinking that having such a page would be a good idea. : ) - jc37 11:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, now I feel sheepish (cut to a Warner Bros. cartoon sound effect : ) - I was reading "noticeboard" to mean the template, rather than the noticeboard page. It would appear that we already have a "requested moves" on the noticeboard page. So what I thought was a "good idea" has already been implemented : ) - My apologies for the confusion. - jc37 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Hiding, I do agree that sources have to be evaluated in context to an extent, but I'd need a context myself before saying more than that. As for Usenet, it wouldn't be a reliable source for anything but itself, and not for biographical information. The danger with evaluating sources too much is that we don't want people rejecting reliable sources simply because they disagree with them. I tend to think if the source is published by a reliable publisher, if s/he's working in a relevant field, and if the material is directly relevant, it can be used without further evaluation. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm considering starting an RFC process on 2005, based on User:Barberio/scratch as his behaviour has not improved. (Taking ownership of WP:EL, Personal Attacks, sloppy use of reverts...) Would you be interested in supporting or endorsing this? --Barberio 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD on Admin Standards pages

Please see this deletion debate. Carcharoth 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Ta. Have supported the deletion, since I never agreed with the page and used my standards in a bid to contextualise the page. Which has grown. Hiding Talk 19:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

temporary watchlist idea

Hiding, where should I got to propose or at least discuss a change to the MediaWiki software that would add the option for a watchlist addition to expire in 3 or 7 days? When I make changes on a page, I add it to my watchlist, but sometimes I only want to watch it for a few days to make sure the page is not vandalized again. It would be helpful if your watchlist entries could only last for a few days; items' expiration watchlist time would be reset upon each time you edited them. So, maybe I want to watch something for 3 days, and then I edit it two days in. I then have it on my watchlist for three more days from that point on. It would be another way to prevent editor burnout. --Chris Griswold ( ) 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They could be called "Active Watchlist" items, items whose activity you are simply trying to monitor for only a short period. --Chris Griswold ( ) 22:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The best starting point is the technical section of the village pump, they'll either direct you ;to where you want to go or make another suggestion, it may be achievable through javascripting, for example.. Hiding Talk 19:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats and Dogs Portals

Hi, Hiding. If you can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats and Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 17:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Um. I don't really do much with portals anymore, so I don't know what standards they have. A featured queue and an updated news section used to be enough to do it, but beyond that I have no idea. Hiding Talk 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks. Your name's still on the project list, so I thought I'd pick your brain. :-) Regards, Rfrisbietalk 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Hiding, as you requested, I am notifying you of my RfA. Looking forward to hearing your opinion! - Mike | Talk 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hiding, that support vote means alot. Good to see that I didn't offend you too much early on :-). - Mike | Talk 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't agree with everything you do, to be honest Mike, but I don't see admin as a big deal. I don't agree with your comments or assessment of Calvin and Hobbes, I think it's a high level article and I don't think it's the best comics article ever written, in fact I think it'd lose Featured status if it was nominated today. However, that's no reason to with-hold on an RFA. I think you need to be more open-minded, but again, that's no reason to with-hold admin status. You didn't offend me, but you certainly frustrated me, and so I try to keep out of your way in best dispute resolution practise. But again, that's no reason to oppose. Good luck with the admin request, I don't think you will abuse the tools, and that's really all that matters. Hiding Talk 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it does need a lot of cleanup in the recurring themes. Perhaps I can post a note to the comics wikiproject. I've been doing some work on cleaning that stuff up and hopefully I'll be able to get the cruft added in ther by anon IPs out soon enough. I don't think it would lose featured status though, and the rest of the article is extremely well done and covers basically everything anybody would need to know about the strip. Still, you're right, it does need to be outsourced to sub-articles. There's a discussion going on about that right now on the talk page, if you're interested. Thanks for your opinions though, I appreciate it. - Mike | Talk 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I think the article would fail on referencing issues, and on comprehensiveness. It doesn't cover criticisms or reviews of the work, and the sections on the plot have no references and are written from an in universe style. But I think we just have different views on what the article should look like, which is why I stopped editing it. Still, take it easy. Hiding Talk 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: pointless

Hiding wrote:

I see you deleted WP:You told a developer to get stuffed and now you have the cheek to complain that your user scripts are playing up? as pointless. It wasn't pointless, it was an attempt at humour. Inspired by other, similarly humorous redirects. Still, it's gone now. Would have been nice if you had dropped me a line. There's no point having a pointless argument about it, I'm sure you feel IAR or SNOW covers it, and who am I to argue? Not sure I could completely disagree, but I couldn't see the harm in it either. Still, happy editing. Hiding Talk 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I understand your intentions, and I don't want to start an argument. Just remember we are here to write an encyclopedia, not a joke book. Keep humorous content in project space to a minimum; use your userspace, or another website dedicated to such things (Uncyclopedia, for example). Thanks – Gurch 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedster (comics)

Hey, Hiding! Long time no talk. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit war at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, so that we can achieve some sort of consensus, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


I just wanted to let you know my thoughts on something. Whether we agree on a specific topic, or not, one thing I can usually count on from you is a thought-full opinion. The recent lengthy discussion about methods of dispute resolution exemplifies that. (One of my regrets of that discussion is that ChrisGriswald's RfA occurred during it, and considering the discussion, I was hesitant to vote in it, as I wished to, since I thought it could be seen as supporting him over you. Things were confused enough as it was. I would have voted support, and explained to you, if it was necessary, but fortunately it wasn't.)

I've read some of the "burn-out" concerns of yourself and CG, and it occurs to me that you and he (being, AFAIK, the only active WP:COMIC admins) are in rather huge demand, in a venue where the contributors are not always aware of wikipedian policies/guidelines/etc. (Not to mention unfortunately fairly constant issues of incivility.) Consider also that the WikiProject talk page has pretty much become a constant series of RfCs.

On top of this. though you seem to travel some of the same pages I do, I've noted that you seem to be quite a bit more prolific. I don't have anywhere near the level of wide-spread contributions you do, especially in Project space.

Anyway, hopefully, you'll get what I'm trying to offer, my: thanks; support; etc. And the hope that you don't let this place "get you down". If there is a way that I can help, let me know. - jc37 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The above obviously goes for CG too : ) - jc37 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the words, but I went through my long night of hell ages ago and have worked out where I am with Wikipedia. And I am disappointed that you did not vote in Chris' run for admin based on how I might have interpreted it. I was one of Cris' co-nominators. You should assume I will assume you act in good faith. I do tend to think half the communication issue between us was that we were acting on our assumptions on what the other was thinking rather than on what was happening. I do think we have vastly different mindsets. That's not a bad thing, but I think it will lead to frustrations between us. Hiding Talk 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  •  : As I mentioned above, I was disappointed too : (
  •  : I just was choosing to stay on the side of caution in, what was at the time, a seemingly confusing situation.
  •  : As for the rest, I am not exactly certain what you mean by different "mindsets", but I do think that whatever miscommunications in the past, the more any two people interact, the less "frustration in communication" occurs.
  •  :And I hope you understood that the "words" were sincere. They were.
  •  :Anyway, feel free to send this one to the archives too, at your pleasure, sir : ) - jc37 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cent makeover

Ping. John  Reid  ° 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Poke. John  Reid  ° 11:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My Wikidiction

Hi, Hiding:

I've asked another Admin for help, but have gotten no response thus far. This is eminently serious, and I'm asking you for help now. Here's what I wrote:

On Friday, Nov. 10 (EST)

This is going to sound weird, but it's absolutely serious and a mark of desperation: I'd like to ask you to block me from editing Wikipedia from this Monday until the following Saturday. I have a serious problem not being to stay away from working on Wiki, and it's affecting my work and my deadlines. I can't stop on my own; I've tried. You could do a comedy sketch about this, with the Wiki addict going through all the steps and rationalizations and everything else an alcoholic does.

I know I have a problem, so I'm asking for help. Please block me from Monday to Saturday so I can concentrate on my regular work. I would appreciate this more than you could imagine. Please. --Tenebrae 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Today, Monday, Nov. 13

Please: I'm still asking for help. The article Wikipediholic makes fun of it, but addiction comes in all form and it's humorous. I believe there needs to be a mechanism for users to voluntary have themselves banned — analogous, though obviously it's on a far lesser degree, to having oneself committed for observation. I understand you may have objections and you wouldn't want every Wiki-addicted Tom, Dick and Harry to come to you for help, but I'm asking this a collegiall favor. At least it's worth discussing. See my four hour contributions list just for today, a work day if you think this isn't serious. Thanks, --Tenebrae 18:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to Hiding, now

I'm sorry to be a bother, but you can see this is serious, and it's something I think the Wikipedia powers-that-be might reasonably addres. Thanks -- Tenebrae 18:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


OTRS is the system through which emails to the Foundation, including complaints, are processed. "OTRS complaint" means that somebody emailed the Foundation to protest. :-) David.Monniaux 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Just FYI (no expectation that you join in, though you are obviously welcome to, just thought you should know): User talk:BrownHairedGirl#More CFDs on MPs?. - jc37 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Dumb Dinosaur

I put quite a bit of effort into that article. Well, some anyway. Deleting it was a horrid thing to do.--Boris Allen 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If you could demonstrate why the animation is important, I will happily restore it. I agree, deletion can seem quite horrid, but perhaps the policy on the ownership of articles will change your view on the deletion. Happy editing! Hiding Talk 21:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No disambiguation unless necessary

Hiding, you wrote this over at Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (television):

It's confusing and it's long standing practise. Wikipedia doesn't standardise for the sake of it, per arb-com, and it doesn't confuse readers. We only disambiguate when we have to. Hiding Talk 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree this applies to city names too? I'm having a hard time getting editors to accept that U.S. city names in particular should not be disambiguated unless necessary. See: Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (settlements) (there is an ongoing survey near the top of the page, and a discussion near the bottom). Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. --Serge 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


I was able to have a very productive work week, which was critically needed. I'll look up the enforced-break script. Thank you again, Hiding — I can't express how much your help has meant. --Tenebrae 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Childrens comics for gcse exam

I noticed that you recently prodded Childrens comics for gcse exam. In reviewing the page history, I notice that it had been previously prodded in March. I don't disagree with deleting it, but doesn't it need to go through the AfD process since it had already been prodded? ~ BigrTex 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors have put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John  Reid  ° 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Image:Heart of darkness cover.jpg"

I'm not sure what speedy criterion you deleted it under and I'm not sure I think your actions were helpful considering the discussion I'd initiated, and I just want to register that frustration. You just chipped away at my faith in Wikipedia one little bit more, but there's no value in going any further with this, and you just chipped away at my faith in Wikipedia one little bit more. Anyway, see you around and happy editing. Hiding Talk

You're right to be frustrated. Though I do not think such use of book covers is fair use, I acted too quickly and I apologize. Chick Bowen 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Misc. queries

There were several things you and I were discussing, some of which have now been archived.

  • Danny Phantom
  • WP:NCC (and I provided a link for your question)

And elsewhere you mentioned something about task forces that I thought was an interesting idea.

I'm also working on "trying" to get the "requested moves" list more done (and eventually making the sub-page you suggested)

I have a few questions about the Portal (to see what we can do to bring it to featured status, if possible)

I nominated Peanuts for a "good" article. After that process, I'd like to see if we can go for FA.

And thank you for commenting about MPs. (Though the discussion from others seems to have ceased - which I did indeed suggest was an option.)

Now all that said, if I've innundated you with too much, please let me know (and if you'd rather I let you alone entirely, I'll accept that as well.)

Just trying to "catch-up". Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm going out of the door right this second, but I do want to pick your brains too on comics categories. I can remember the Danny Phantom thing, I think we had come to a disagreement that appeared impassable to me. I can't recall the NCC thing. The portal to FA, meh, I could care less, I hand a hand in setting up the Featured Portal process and should have run it through then, but I've never been a badge wearer. The MP thing I said my piece and am done with. Anyway, have to go, catch you later. Hiding Talk 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, trying to remember...

  • I think things got confused about Danny Phantom because we started talking about several articles at once.
  • As for "the NCC thing", just check that page's contributions list. I found the link about the "spin-offs" for you. But it wasn't anything important.
  • I still have a few questions about the portal, but they can wait.
  • Peanuts we both know about
  • To be honest, the main reason I linked to the discussion about MPs, was because I mentioned your name to Kbdank71 at one point, and the post that I did so was being quoted, so I felt you should know your name came up. Though I do/did appreciate the comments.

All that aside, what about comics-related categories did you want to discuss? - jc37 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Danny Phantom I think you wanted to move to a (series) dab, with the character moving to occupy the Phantom slot, whilst I wanted to avoid a dab term, and move the character page to, um, Danny Felgate or whatever his surname is. I don't think we were likely to see much movement there, I tend to hold to the position that the guidance is to avoid dab terms where possible.
  • I'm still unclear as to what you are referring to regards WP:NCC. I know I took out the spin off line, but I can't find anything in the page history of WP:NCC that looks like you found the link to show what "spin offs" refers to. I'm not sure what's being discussed here.
  • Fire away regards the portal thing.
  • The comics related categories thing is on the back-burner at the moment. Peanuts is sucking all available attention. I'll get back to it eventually, and let you know when I do, don't worry. Hiding Talk 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't quite follow your comment on WP:WHEEL. You seem to be saying that you endorse both the current version as well as restoring the page to the previous version. Could you please explain if I missed something? Thanks. (Radiant) 14:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, you didn't miss anything. I figure if it calms the situation down, then create a workshop page and get a wide audience in. There was a similar problem at WP:EL that was worked out in a similar manner recently. Hiding Talk 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There is already a wide audience, considering John posted this message to about a dozen editors. Since so far nobody agrees with him, I don't quite see how a workshop discussion would help. (Radiant) 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Hey, that's my talk page you linked to! :-) Ironic, as I'm one of the editors that hasn't commented over there yet. I haven't had time to read the morass of conflicting stuff. My general feeling is that it would be best to decide on something (fairly lax), and then let people follow their own (stricter) guidelines if they want. A bit like the 3RR versus 1RR thing. It should be common sense really. Be civil and discuss things, rather than edit warring, even if the actions happen to be admin actions. Oh, and investigate before taking admin actions, and thus prevent slow wheel wars. (OK, I'll copy this over there now). Carcharoth 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I tend to agree. On the workshop issue, I'm just trying to take the heat out oif the situation. It isn't going to matter if this takes another week, as far as I am concerned, but I've made my opinion known there, and I've removed it from my watchlist. I'm tired of getting into all these debates now. Hiding Talk 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Same to you

Thanks for handling that so graciously. Chick Bowen 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A little assistance please?


I was finding administrators for Wiki finally found someone. So the issue is a guy in my talk page he is offensive, and now started giving me threats of me getting banned from here. The issue is on the Article "Metallica" the guy puts on {{totally disputed}} tag on it without any apparent reason, or mentioning anything in the articles discussion page. I removed it, they guy msged me, i told him how it was incorrect to put that tag, and put that back again, with a detailed explanation in the Discussion page of the article, he again removed it WITHOUT mentioning anything in the talk page and now stating the follwing in my talk page.
If you continue to remove this tag without addressing the issues, you may be banned for an undetermined amount of time. Due to the warnings you have already received on this matter, this will be the last one. If you decide to remove the tag again without addressing the numerous fact and POV tags in the Metallica article, you will simply be reported. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is he an admin or what? And I did not like this way of counter-attack. If you can kindly resolve the issue, or tell me as to what should I do? Kindly do reply at my talk page. Akeeq 10:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, if you do into this inquiry by Akeeq (and I totally encourage you to do so), you will find no warnings were given without reason and without diffs showing the violations of incivility. Due to the time put into attempting to help Akeeq understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies, and the number of times I have asked them not to remove the {{totally disputed}} tag when the article clearly qualifies for one, I have told him to seek help from other people (especially admins) on any further understanding as I have obviously failed at this. I look forward to reading your feedback. Roguegeek (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Someone gave, what I presume was some good advice at Talk:Peanuts. Since he used Superman as an example, and I noticed you did the fair use explanation of the hero-box image, I was wondering if you would take a look? - jc37 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for filling out that fair use rationale for me on Image:Peanutsgang.gif. - Mike (Talk) 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif Have another one for finding & adding all of those refs to Peanuts. - Mike (Talk) 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello: editor review request

Hello, I noticed you've edited the Editor Review page, and I'm trying to get some feedback on my Review. I wouldn't normally solicit, but it appears Editor Review doesn't get nearly the attention RfA does (and understandably so). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading. --Bobak 06:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review me, I've also answered your question. --Bobak 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

New Universe peer review

Many thanks for your comments - some managed to pinpoint things I was vaguely aware of, others raised issues that I hadn't yet considered (such as the ties to Jim Shooter's reign) and I think I agree with pretty much all of them. Hopefully this will give me (& all of the editors who've been working on this) a clear way forward and a few things to consider. Thanks! --Mrph 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good egg

I saw some of your contributions/comments scattered around and you sounded a bit less like your normal happy self than usual. I wanted to say that I've always appreciated your edits to policy pages and your comments on talk pages. Keep up the good work. 06:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you. As it goes, I'm fine, I just haven't the time anymore to get sucked into long debates which aren't going anywhere. I'm okay if people are willing to have an open mind, but I can't keep getting sucked in to debates about where to put the bikeshed. Hiding Talk 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick note

I thought you might be interested in this. - jc37 09:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox version

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence - For attempting to help resolve a lengthy and often confusing communication breakdown, and as a nudge that you might continue to help in other such instances on Wikipedia : )
- jc37 19:49, 26 October 2006

Calvin and Hobbes refs.

Hi Hiding. I remember in talking to you a while ago that you believed one of the reasons Calvin and Hobbes might lose featured status if nominated today was on referencing issues. I agree with you that more are needed, and as I have farmed out the recurring themes into a sub-article, I am moving onto that task now. Seeing how many great refs you found for Peanuts, I thought I'd leave a message here to invite you to come and help out if you are interested. I promise not to get in an edit war this time ;-). After all, nothin bad has happened with Peanuts yet. Mike (Talk) 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Title Paragraph

Hi, I would like to write up a new article as wikipedia:titleparagraphs. I'd appreciate your assistance. Title paragraphs often called 'opening' paragraphs in the literary world are very important to seize readers’ attention and encourage them to read on. Title paragraphcs need to be written in a surmising style in as few concise but detailed sentences as possible.

Notice the difference between this article and this one. A remarkable difference. Are you going to read the a whole title paragraph like that for every article you look up? Long title paragraphs deter users who are simply surfing or frantically looking for the low down of a specific subject at handm, they are also a pleasure for the serious researcher.

Unfortunately this is not a guideline. I think editors should be advised about this point and I would feel privileged to start the article. Please let me know how I could go about it. Thanks

Chavatshimshon 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Copyright images on your user page"

Hey, just letting you know that i responded to what you said on my talk page. I asked a few questions there so if you could answer them there(so they will be easier to look up) that would be great TY.Phoenix741 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pop data walton

I've put a reference on it. Walton-on-Thames Thanks for that SuzanneKn 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Need help with persistent reverter

Hi, Hiding. User:CovenantD and I have tried every way possible of trying to talk with a persistently troublesome editor, User:Asgardian, over his reversions to Awesome Android (comics). He insists he doesn't have to follow the comicx exemplar, he adds misspellings and other erroneous edits back in, he removes reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at the article's talk page, and there had been much more at User talk:Asgardian — with other editors complaining about his clumsy wholesale edits of Galactus and other articles — but he erases all comments.

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party look at both versions and render a verdict. CovenantD and I are at our wits' ends trying to work with Asgardian. He doesn't appear to want to work with other editors, however, nor even to communicate with them on his talk page.

Sorry to bother you with this. Several editors have tried reasoning with him to no avail. Any advice you can give would be much appreciate.

On an unrelated note, thank you again for the link to Wikibreak Enforcer. It's been a godsend; it really has. And on another note, as a fellow editor with interest in early comics history, I hope you have a chance to read and add to The Funnies, Funnies on Parade and Famous Funnies. With best wishes, Tenebrae 10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See also here, here and here for examples of other editors who've tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions against consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. It's maddening. --Tenebrae 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not really about for a few days, you might be better served taking it to the admin's noticeboard. Hiding Talk 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And that's good advice! Hope you and yours are well. Thanks! --Tenebrae 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance

Don't suppose you could weigh in on the borderline unpleasantness here on if it's an essay or what? 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


I've responded to you on my talk page. Cheers •Elomis• 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Did you have that second run at adminship yet, or can I have the privilege of nominating you? Hiding Talk 12:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't yet. And if you would like to, you're quite welcome to do so. I don't know if User:Kbdank71 or User:Mike Selinker (or possibly others I may have forgotten, or am unaware of) are still interested, but they may wish to be involved as well.
As an aside, I have to admit that your post bowled me over upon reading it. Can't exactly say why, it just did. Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


I enthusiastically support the idea of Jc becoming an admin. Is it more useful for me to co-nominate, or just to support the nomination when it comes up? Whichever is more likely to lead to success is fine with me.--Mike Selinker 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to say (I can't recall ever nominating anyone). Let me know if it's ok. --Kbdank71 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, I have to admit... It's "something" to read the nominations... Considering this feeling, I'm especially glad I was able to co-nominate MS... Anyway, thanks : ) - Oh, and I'll see if I can find a better "balance" (brevity vs elucidation) to answering the questions this time : ) - jc37 09:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, added the page to the RfA page. I also "moved" the page, since the an associated page suggested that a second nom merely have "2" after the username. Hopefully I found the balance in answering the questions : ) - Anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well : ) - jc37 13:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that it probably matters, but I was wondering if the nominators are also supposed to place their votes (similar to what we did on Mike Selinker's nomination)? - jc37 22:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If I thought it was needed, I would have. Besides, Radiant taught me something when he nominated me and didn't vote. --Kbdank71 13:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Why was my page about my student deleted. Binyamin Katz had a very hard life and you deletin it has made him sink into a depression. Please consider putting it back up

Thanks and respond on my talk page please Drfreid 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Dr Paul H. Freidmann


but how come you can just come along and delete it? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drfreid (talkcontribs) 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Minor Edits

Got it. Thanks.

Asgardian 07:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Asgardian again

Hi, Hiding. Ironically I'm posting this just after your recent comment to User:Asgardian about his "minor edit" tagging. It appears that despite his promises, Asgardian, infuriatingly, has gone back to his old ways of not. As User:CovenantD and I believe others have reverted, Asgardian is again deleting "Publication history" at Awesome Android and seemingly just baiting other editors.

Wikipedia just seems like a joke to him. Despite all his promises to abide by policies and guidelines, he behaves for a few days, then goes right back to creating mischief. I plead with you (as I've also asked User:ChrisGriswold) to intervene. When is enough enough?

Thanks for any help. What a thing, huh? And let me at least wish you a Happy New Year, at any rate. Best to you and yours,-- Tenebrae 15:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hiding, the melodrama aside, I have presented my reasons for changing the entry on the Discussion Page. How do we proceed from here? Does someone adjudicate?


Asgardian 09:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please help me.

A user keeps deleting a section that I wrote on the Paris Hilton page. I took a look at her user page, she seems like a person who would be a Hilton fan and I think she's just doing this out of objective resons; because she likes her. I tried resoning with her, but she keeps ocusing me of vandalism and violation of wiki rules and sicing some type of user at me or something, I'm not the nicest user, but she is over reacting.

Please, I admit I HATE Paris Hilton, but I did my best to keep the section non-obective and factfull. I didn't go writing stuff like


You're an administrator, I'm counting on you to make some order.

Here are the links you'll need to look in to this and do what you think is correct.

User that's ocusing me User:Acalamari. Please look in to her and mine talk pages to see how we've been comunicating.

And the section we're fighting over:



Look around the Backlash section.

Just do what you think is right, I hate it when some user overpowers me cause he or she has a friend with lots of fancy usertags, I've been a wikipedian for a long long time, I've been editing stuff before I got an account. So I rather feel insulted when someone shoves soemthing like

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing.

in my face, do you know what I mean?

Oh and, do let me know =) --Mudel 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I think you deleted this in error. It has relevant history, including an AfD that closed no consensus.--Kchase T 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, it was merged here.--Kchase T 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I still think we should make Paris' disliking more noticable it is one of her most known asets, but hey you're the admin, won't argue with you guys, I will make more future atemts to point this out one day, and they will meet wiki standarts. But for the time being I submit to your will.


Aren't I intitled to my opinion on the talk page? She deleted my entry, because I was trolling, I admit I was, well I changed it later to

she deleted it anyway and I think this was just an attack one me. Why well if you look at entrys like:

You kinda wonder why didn't she jump at those. Hmmmmmm, oh maybe because none of them actually did anything to teh actual article, LIKE I DID.

So either get them all out or give me mine back, I don't want any administrative action against her, I just want the right to post my opinion/suggestion on a freakin talk page like everyone else did.

Respectfully --Mudel 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Action for reaction, Lord I wish I could be peacful

Hey thanksa for the archiving suggestion, but I'd rather just keep me page minimal. All I got were deleted unpropper tagged image deletions and some user clashes. If there's anything more significant or amusing to me I leave it, besides I have the history if I ever need a blast from the past.

As for the Hilton talk page, I understand. And moving on from the issue would be a wise to do as you suggested.'s times like these I really hate my rebellious nature, people just seem to be able to ignore bad things if they don't really hurt them, but I just get annoyed by everything wrong, I mean why stand on a silent platform?? Fight the war, FUCK the norm!

I just can't be opressed man, not by some 16 year old facist. I just gotta fight my fight, I hope you can understand that, be it a war or a wikifit, I'll figth for what's right.

Anyway mate thanks for ye help ;)

Yeah, so you thought you could get with the hardlines

That fill your mind

Thoughts, battles fought

And lessons taught

Yes I'll display the fitness

And flip like a gymnast

Raise my fist and resist

Asleep, though we stand in the midst

Of the war

Gotta get mine

Gotta get more

Keyboard warm against the norm

--Mudel 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


FYI, CovenantD's user page has been recently vandalized several times by two anons. The timing appears to implicate that it might in fact be Asgardian, but I have not checked this thoroughly. It might warrant a check user. Asgardian came to me for assistance possibly because I had recently blocked CovenantD for a 3RR violation in an edit war. You seem to already be involved in dealing with this, but let me know if I can be of any assistance. -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:N help

Hiding, we are having a bit of a problem at the 6th AfD debate for the article The Game (game). Specifically, we are having some debates about if an article truly needs multiple sources to be considered notable. Since you originally added that language to WP:N (diff), I was hoping that you would be able to help with this debate. If you decide to contribute, please do so on the AfD page, so that all of the editors involved can benefit. I thank you in advance, and hope to discuss this issue with you further. W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Please e-consider the deletion of ASHIKA, as they are the first group to fuse,contemporary HEAVY ROCK/METAL/INDUSTRIAL sounds with eastern instrumentation.They are respected by the music industry as innovators and have many supporters round the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleishap (talkcontribs) 12:46 30 December 2006 (UTC)

please restore my article as you do not appreciate the importance worldwide of ASHIKA, who are respected as innovators being the first group to fuse HEAVY ROCK/METAL/INDUSTRIAL sounds with eastern instruments. they have supporters around th eworld, due to world tours, airplay, tv exposure cd sales etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleishap (talkcontribs) 12:51 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your calmness

It's refreshing and reassuring. Thanks, as always, for being such a steady presence. I'll try to let my months of simmering frustration with one individual not get the better of me. --Tenebrae 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


i HAVE READ ARTICLES IN MUSIC REVIEWS, HOWEVER THE only liink that comes to mind is that of where ASHIKA were single of the week.. and where you can purchase their MOTHER EARTH CD online. also

ASHIKA HAVE FUSED contemporary metal/industrial sounds with eastern instruments..a considerable evolution from LED ZEPELLIN.

mANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID TO ME IT would add to the credence of WIKIPEDIA to have ASHIKA included. have you seen the list of people they have worked with?

Do you understand contemporary ROCK/METAL ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleishap (talkcontribs) 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  2. ^ null