User talk:Turnstep/2005

Friendly question

Hi Turnstep :-). What is the exact problem you have again with the Illyria page, I'm having trouble understanding. (With the exception of the spellcheck stuff, that was just faulty typing on my part). Thanks! UltimateBuffyfan (Chris)

I'll answer on the Talk:Illyria page when I get a chance. Turnstep 22:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Negri and Johann Hari

I see you removed a link to Johann Hari's interview with Antonio Negri, describing it as 'link spam'. Why? It's a bloody awful article, to be sure, but it is genuinely an interview with Negri, so I don't see that it can be classified as spam. I'm minded to add it back in.

- VoluntarySlave 07:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some anonymous user (could be M. Hari, could not be) linked about 30 articles at once in various pages, of which Antonio Negri was one. They added the links in to the middle of lists (hoping to remain undetected) and varied the text, sometimes calling Johann Hari a "liberal journalist", sometimes a "conservative journalist", sometimes a "gay journalist", etc. depending on the context of the page. They always made sure the link somehow used the name "Johann Hari" instead of just the name of the article. All very suspicious. Feel free to add it back in if you feel it meets the criteria of Wikipedia and adds something to the page (does a "bloody awful" article do so? *grin*). I'm not opposed to linking to the articles, per se, but not in the inappropriate manner in which it was done. I do feel that actual interviews are probably valuable enough to generally include, but mere essay speculation (e.g. the "Agatha Christie was a conservative") is not.

- Turnstep 10:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, thanks for explaining. Actually, rumour has it that Hari has a history of, eg, reviewing his own books on Amazon, so I wouldn't put it past him to do something similar here.

VoluntarySlave 18:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

141.153.175.20

Please don't call all edits you disagree with vandalism. Whereas the edit to your user page was clear vandalism, the edits to Spades were perhaps inappropriate, but definitely not vandalism. See Dispute Resolution for handling such matters. --fvw * 00:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Rider Question

I know from the season one episode DVD collection (cause I'm a Knight Rider dork and I bought it) that David Hasslehoff's fiancee starred with him during the episode where Michael meets his former fiancee when he was Michael Long. I didn't think he was married to her yet, or if she went off to marry the actor Michael Knight in real life. I suggest maybe looking her career up on the IMDB, they may have some trivia on it. Cyberia23 22:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - turns out all involved have wiki pages, so I linked to them. Pretty weird coincidence! Turnstep 22:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of

On Agatha Christie, you undid my redirect. I was doing all those redirects on a same road as you, but then I was stopped and told that they are useful in seeing which information needs to be updated (e.g. something might link to As of 2003, and the person looking at the 'What links here' for As of 2003 would notice that link, go to the page and update the information). I then reverted all my 'naughty' redirects. Just to let you know and ask, 'Would you let me revert your revert?'. It's... Thelb4! 19:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure I follow all that. I've always been under the impression that redirects should be eliminated whenever possible by linking to the thing the redirects targets. The one exception might be for a page that someday may become distinct from the target page, but I don't think this qualifies. At any rate, it's no big deal to me, so if someone feels strongly about it, go ahead and revert it to as of 2005, I won't raise a fuss not revert it. Turnstep 22:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MySQL

Thanks for agreeing with the two main branches for MySQL. I really think the Latest Release title easily misses the point of multiple software branches which is why I previously suggested that it be expanded to Recent Version(s) or even Latest Release(s). We'll watch for version 5.x when it is actually stable, strangely enough only some releases now, not all, are considered "beta" in the download section unless it's specific to the download and that the API itself is still not stable. Good job with the linkspam :) Quadra23 02:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for cleaning up after User:172.213.172.246. --R.Koot 10:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks like they may be back: keep an eye on 82.111.18.83 who has so far only done one page Linux but with the same linkspam. Turnstep 13:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venice

Why are you more offended about Venice being rerouted to New Orleans than Seoul being rerouted to Kim Il-Sung City, or Kim Jong-il being rerouted to Emperor Palpatine? --Shultz 13:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, but thanks for the heads up, I'll start monitoring those pages for vandalism as well. :) Turnstep 13:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring of users themselves

Thanks for editing my entry about JED3's blog. However, I can't help but point out that it's evidence of you watching me, the user, myself.

First of all, how does someone watch someone else?

Second, are you female? Did you become interested in me to the point that you started watching me?

I wonder if watching a user is like following someone home every day, or having a crush on them. Behaviorally mature Christian girls would work wonders for me. =) --Shultz 14:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Lists

Hello. I see nothing wrong with the Wikipedia reference in Book of Lists, as it is an accurate statement that the Book of Lists was a precursor to the notable phenomenon of countless lists on Wikipedia. Are you set against this reference? Cheers! BD2412 ^talk 23:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're not supposed to do that in Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. While it's still possible to mention Wikipedia in an article, I think in this circumstance it would be too much of a self-reference. Turnstep 00:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for your support :). I look forward to working with you in the near future. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring AfD notice

"pages with AfD messages must not have them removed until issue is settled"[1]

Perhaps we disagree on what the "issue" is. There is plenty of precedent for removing AfD notices when redirects are being turned into worthless articles (whether they're on-topic or not). I really don't see any point in debating the redirect, and as I said, there's no reason the discussion can't happen on the talk page for the dozens. Anyway, I don't have a problem with the AfD process continuing, I just wanted to make sure you understood my motivations. —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem, thanks for explaining. Feel free to redirect it and move the discussion to the dozens page if you want. I'm okay either way. Just want to give the page a fighting chance to make it on its own. Turnstep 22:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The The Blah blah dangerous guild

Hi Turnstep! Glad to see you there. We really need you there! Cheers -- Svest 02:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Happy Diwali

Regarding your mom... so to speak

I apologize for the repeated reverts, though you must keep in mind that the clear consensus on the discussion was that it should be a redirect. An edit summary like "Revert and expand : please do not change to a redirect" doesn't tell me that you actually are aware of that, if you were indeed aware of it. Regardless, I finally get it; clearly the whole "your mom" thing is distinct from "yo momma". I'll make sure to point that out if it goes up for deletion again! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your mom forgot to read the AfD! :) So did I, apparently, else I certainly would have voted. Thanks for the note. I honestly don't know what happened there, maybe I thought it was a speedy delete for some reason. Anyway, I obviously should have added a comparison sentence to the article earlier. Sorry for all the confusion. Next step is probably to tackle the dozens, as I am not convinced that "your mom" truly evolved from that, as the page indicates. Ironic thing is, I've never even used the phrase (except here) Turnstep 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... so now what? The article was actually deleted at one point, and recreated by someone else, but there is still a AfD record out there. What is the proper procedure? Call for another AfD? Thanks. Turnstep 14:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be appropriate, though the bureaucratic overhead is sort of annoying. I would definitely vote to keep it this time because of the clear distinction from the dozens. It is a bit odd to have the "past AfD" notice on the talk page saying that the outcome was "redirect" and yet have the article not redirecting, but it seemed like the correct way to document the AfD. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. Actually, I believe there is an explicit way to request undeletion, and that would probably be the way to go. Check out Wikipedia:Deletion review. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I've got to get more sleep, it is explained quite clearly on the AfD page. I just created the undeletion request. Knock on wood. Turnstep 01:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I want to thank you for voting in my RFA even though u opposed me I understand why. Thanks Again --JAranda | watz sup 23:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re RDBMS

User:Leandrod made such mess that only an admin can revert it now. User:HappyCamper has already stated that would be willing to help out here. --R.Koot 17:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hi there! I've completed your page move as requested. Please double check if other links need fixing; I don't think there are any double redirects, but it's always nice to get someone familiar with the subject to take a look. :-) --HappyCamper 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Pamri

Hi, Thanks a ton for supporting and voting at my RFA. I am now a wikipedia administrator. I hope I can keep your trust. Thanks again. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for voting on my RfA. I realize that I have not been here long, however other users said I would do just fine as an administrator, so I followed their advice. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fictional heroes

I was wondering what the ordering of the names is supposed to be as an example you have both Abraham Lincoln and John Axon under the A's and Mohandas Gandhi and Gino Strada under the G's and there are others. Is it by first or last name? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something else that might be useful in my opinion is a notice that says it's for heroes and that does not include entertainers unless they have done something outside of their field. Possible people for that might be Bono for his work in combating poverty or Eric Clapton for his alcoholism work. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23's RfA

G'day Turnstep, I have now signed my RfA. Thank you for pointing that out and I hope now that I can secure your vote. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I imagine that in changing your vote to support, you also intended to strike your neutral vote? It's still there. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. Turnstep 02:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Turnstep,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup

Hi, Turnstep. Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

argh.. my signature

Thanks for the tip about it. It's been fixed. splintax ^(talk) 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCH

I've responded to your point on WP:SCH. I hope you'll stick around and be part of the debate. Any suggestions you can bring would be helpful to continuing to garner the most wide spread opinion we can get to solve this issue once and for all. Gateman1997 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ackroyd

Indulging in an edit war would attract attention to the article and ruin the novel for anyone who hadn't read it. I won't do that, which is why I reply here rather than on the talk page. The spoiler warning should be enough but it isn't. It's simply too easy to see the resolution. I speak as someone for whom Ackroyd was ruined by a "helpful" magazine article on Agatha Christie. Rather than acting on principle, don't you think it would be more considerate to simply remove temptation more effectively? Vincent 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this:

The book is most notable for its surprise ending where the murderer confesses in writing:

I am rather pleased with myself... What could be neater, for instance, than the following: "The letters were brought in at twenty minutes to nine. It was just ten minutes to nine when I left him, the letter still unread. I hesitated with my hand on the door handle, looking back and wondering if there was anything I had left undone."

Ordinarily I'd agree that the spoiler warning is enough, but this case is special because it's so easy to reveal the ending, which once known is impossible to forget. The first AC I've read was the ABC Murders some 25 years ago. I remember loving it, but I've forgotten who did it, so I could probably read it again as if it were the first time. Not so Roger Ackroyd. <sigh> Vincent 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Vincent 05:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Dear Cathy

Done! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains

I'll try to help when I can, but unfortunately I'm about to leave for Thanksgiving, so I'll probably be off Wikipedia until next Saturday or so. I hope that we'll be able to work with the Scarecrow fellow to find a middle ground and improve the page through consensus. Of course, that depends on his behavior as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

whazzzzzzzzzaaah!!! yeah.. i wasnt talking to you.. im sure grammar and spelling matters...but only when u're talking with serious people, not with childish dictators with no encyclopedic or encyclopedist knoledge, lol. thats why i hate forums. ooh!, got a NEWSFLASH for ya: concensus involver more than 2 people unless it is a marriage... ooh! got it! congratulations, im all open minded. and one more thing, when answerin', dont write above the original messenger, i know u think u're opinion is the most important, fellah, but, since nobady made u the ruller of wikipedia, the rest of the world don't agree! "yours" --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 01:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for asking for advice, you did the right thing in contacting other users for opinions. While I may have disagreed with you on the issue on the page itself, I won't abide any more abuse by T-man. That's profoundly out of line on his part. Please do keep contributing to the Wiki, I'm glad you're here! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a little polishing on T-man's edits to the page, and I've also been talking with him on the discussion page. I think he's beginning to calm down a bit and tone his excitable style down — I don't think he means to be offensive. He's a non-native speaker of English and I'm guessing is pretty young as well. I don't think he means to come across as confrontational as he does. I hope you can come back and work on the page with us. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I agree with the not meaning to be offensive. I would think being called Hitler or Mussolini would be an insult in most cultures. (I'm still not sure which one I am, and which one you are, though :). At least he is finally using the talk page, and slowly learning how to edit pages. No worries, however: I'm keeping an eye on the page, just laying off the editing for a bit and focusing my energies elsewhere. I'll probably jump back in at some point and help clean up. Feel free to answer my talk page Lex Luthor conundrum in the meantime. I still support separating the page via historical / non-historical, although the name of the latter will be tricky, as pointed out. Turnstep 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he doesn't mean to be as offensive as he was being. (I agree that he was out of line in some of his comments about you, but I'm trying to assume good faith. I've managed to do some good work with him tonight, for what it's worth. I'll probably get started on the fictional/historical split some time tomorrow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, do not take me so serious. but you are not as polite as you think you are turnstep. i've been using the talk pages for a while now... actually, i find that kind of commentary ofensive. since the begining you have been talkin about me on third person, and undoing my changes also before asking me or anyone. the hitler thing, you fell for it and you know why, you are too authoritarian. when ever you hear one opinion slightly similar to you you think thats enough to do whatever you like. And some times not even that, you just call it vandalism and report you "fixed it". Your lex luthor conundrum has been answered, superman is a comic character and so does luthor, if there has been aparitions on other madia those are "based on the comic character" and if there are villains that were created outside comics or haven't even apeared on comics we specify it. About the historical characters, maybe we could disapear the category and put them in the category and work they apeared in.I dunno, whateva is cool with ya--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme card manipulation

This may get few hits on Google and may possibly be invented, but card manipulation (not Extreme) is not only used by magicians but also used as a show of of dexterity, so in that regard the article is right and Card magic needs serious expansion. Would you consider a merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd request

Hi. I noticed that you voted keep on the lintilla Vfd page. That one, along with Planes of Existence are in the balance in terms of votes. As they both meet the requirements for notoriety that Wikipedia has, I would hate to see them be deleted, when the Vfd was put up 30 seconds after creation of the article, hence adversely influencing voting. Please can you also vote on that page, and if possible encourage others to look at them both and make their votes, before it is too late. Wikipedia policy says that once deleted by a Vfd, an article cannot ever be reinstated, and any attempts to do so are considered to be vandalism. For such important areas, I would hate to see them not be able to be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. Zordrac 17:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments

Most confusing edit summary ever :P Raul654 21:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks, I think. Guess I should have quoted "common sense" :) Turnstep 22:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

walking game

Hey I noticed that you took "the walking game" off the sports list. I was wondering what you have against the walking game. Also, why do you wish to delete the "the walking game" article from Wikipedia despite the fact that this article is perfectly legitimate and many people are interested in it? thanks Don Burns 17:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page - Turnstep 19:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hero

Why you take of the People traditionally recognized as heroes from the artikel Hero? 213.114.215.199 16:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page (page diff) Turnstep 18:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had sed why i put People traditionally recognized as heroes in the page Hero. Enochlau deleded List_of_non-fictional_heroes so ask him if he can deled it back. 213.114.215.199 15:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll at List of villains

In light of 213.114.215.199's repeated reversions to the old alphabetical format, it seems to me that we were (or, at least, I was) a bit too hasty in deciding that there was a consensus in favor of organizing List of villains by medium. Since the previous discussion was pretty scatter-shot (in large part due to T-man, the Wise Scarecrow's early belligerence), I decided that a straw poll would be helpful. I'd appreciate it if you could come and participate in the polling process (which seems a bit overly bureaucratic to me, but I want to do this by the book). Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Companies from Villains

I think the companies you removed from this page should be restored. They each represent a universe where the villains often crossover into other cartoon properties owned by the company. It would be like removing DC Comics, Marvel Comics and independent companies and merging all of them into one blob of comic villains. If anything, we could specialize further into other companies (i.e., a.a.p or whoever made the Casper cartoons). Please restore this. Thanks. --Happylobster 15:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars peer review

Yes, I've been watching them. Thanks for all of the help! I just haven't got around to it. I'm planning to use everyone's suggestions when I do work on it soon. The Wookieepedian 09:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, over the last few days, I've been incorporating your suggestions. Take a look if you haven't already. :) The Wookieepedian 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Film

Actually, I can't really revert it. When we protect a page, it is with no judgements on which is the "right version". And it looks like there are so many versions that it'd be difficult to figure out which version is the most acceptable anyway. Which is why we simply protect it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really all you can do is talk it out and see if you can come to some kind of agreement. Templates are tricky because as you said, it affects alot of articles. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Ulster

Thanks for the tips, turnstep, deeply appreciated. Cheers! Fergananim 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Film

Oops, sorry about that. Should be fixed now. -- Beland 23:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA (and bonus points for catching the Sinatra ref in my answer). I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

villains directory

i know your probable answer is going to be: screw you. hahaha but i have an idea that is probably going to be of your interest. whatabout a page with a bit table with an alphabetical list of all time fiction villains, then their original medium, then the gage and date they first appeared, then teir author, and finally other apparitions.

What do you think (besides screw you, heh heh)--T for Trouble-maker 23:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you mean by "time fiction villains" but no harm in creating a new page with your idea and then maybe ask on the List of villains talk page what people think of it. Turnstep 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]