This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. Best regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again Slamburger and I are at it again regarding D-Man's Avengers Membership. A new third party source has found and Slamburger will not allow this source to be used. Do you might stepping in on the situation again. Spshu (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Your input would be welcome here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abomination_(comics) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics
there's a degree of hostility from one user that may be able to be neutralised by several voices. I think he needs to grasp that I am open to change and that this new style is a work in progress. Asgardian (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it. A good counterpoint. Why not move it into general essay namespace instead of keeping it as a user essay? (and why not link to it from places like WP:NOT?) RoyLeban (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. :) Could you have a look at my thoughts and see if there is any commentary you would like to add? Maybe if I'm not alone in this, we can get some action going? BOZ (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Non-article Comics pages, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Non-article Comics pages has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Non-article Comics pages, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hiding. It's good to see that you're still editing. I don't mean to burden you, but I need to tell you some things.
As you know, I've spent a considerable amount of my time lately on Wikipedia trying to remove PLOT from WP:NOT; at the end of this month it will have been a year now. Recently I posted links to every PLOT thread in the WT:NOT archives[1]. I think articles ought to contain more than just a plot summary, but I don't think it needs to be done in five days. I've never created a plot-only article, I've never created a fictional character article, but I have read PLOT in the past and have cited film critics in dozens if not hundreds of film articles.
On December 30, I removed PLOT again[2] after reading Protonk's reply to me at WT:NOT (saying "PLOT isn't going anywhere"). I was reverted by Jack Merridew [3], who said "rvv." You can see the range here. (Jack Merridew was indefinitely blocked until December 9 as the sockpuppet of a banned user, I requested he be added as a party to E&C2 before I even knew he was the sockpuppet of banned user, and I vocally said he should not be unblocked. I know you contributed to the E&C2 workshop.) I reverted[4], Jack Merridew reverted[5], I reverted again[6], Cameron Scott reverted[7], and I commented in an edit summary[8]. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned, and one of his mentors brought up his edits to NOT on his talk page.
Since March 2008, I have removed PLOT from NOT more than anyone. I removed PLOT from NOT 13 times in 9 1/2 months, from mid-March 2008 to the end of December 2008. Looking back, that was an extremely poor decision on my part — but I feel strongly that PLOT being in NOT damages Wikipedia, that PLOT doesn't have consensus to be policy, and that it needs to be removed from that policy. I've made I-don't-know-how-many-edits to the policy talkpage since last year. After my recent reverts, Jack Merridew started an ANI thread. The admin who has reverted the removal of PLOT more than anyone (and filed ANI threads in November and December about my removals of PLOT) started a user RFC on my behavior, and Protonk (who told me PLOT isn't going anywhere) archived the ANI thread.
WP:NOT was fully protected for a month, until January 30, 2009 — but I requested unprotection at RFUP and thankfully it was unprotected. Jack Merridew and I promised to not edit WP:NOT at all during January [9], and I am considering many more months beyond that, but Kww called that a "weak pledge and nothing that I can see as a substantive step in the right direction" so I'm kind of at a loss.
Recently, WesleyDodds redirected every Watchmen character article except Rorschach to a list, due in part to PLOT I believe. I reverted, and Kww reverted[10] [11] me. I opposed Kww in his RFA, although I was the 40th person to do so. I suppose I have offended Kww in the past, referring to an article he created and his insistence on a strict adherence to WP:N as hypocritical. But I know nobody is 100% consistent, I know I'm not. But there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And the page has complaints now. And no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either. That thread is basically WesleyDodds saying he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." I thought about asking Kww about his edits, but right now I think the articles are safer as redirects, frankly. Emperor started a new thread at WikiProject Comics here.
In October, Phil Sandifer made a request to extend the restrictions imposed upon TTN during E&C2. On October 9, arbitrator Stephen Bain rejected the request and said "One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters." So on October 14, in my attempt to develop such a notability guideline, I wrote up a draft of the survey that I had suggested to Masem clear back on June 10, and started a thread about it at WT:FICT, which was dead at the time. David Fuchs, Masem, and Collectonian commented. Also on October 14, I added a note about the survey to ((fiction notice)), Collectonian reverted. A week later, on October 21, I re-added a note about the survey to ((fiction notice)), Collectonian reverted. I re-added, Collectonian reverted. I wanted people to be aware of the survey so they could offer their input and edit it before it went live, unlike when Randomran started the RFC on N. Also on October 21, I asked arbitrator Stephen Bain about the survey, and got no response. On October 22, I started a thread about the survey at the village pump, and two people did comment on the talk page of the survey.
On October 23, the RFC on N closed. Phil Sandifer's request for extension was archived by Rlevse on October 24 after Stephen Bain and FloNight rejected the request and no other Arbcom members commented. On October 27 I asked Phil Sandifer about the survey I wrote, on October 28 he said at WT:FICT, "I support a survey along these lines...That said, I think this survey is far too long, and far too demanding, and that it is not likely to work." 39 minutes later, Phil Sandifer created User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal.
On November 21, Phil Sandifer used his admin tools and unprotected[12][13] WP:FICT and moved his proposal over and added a note to ((fiction notice)) — and that's the version of FICT you're supporting now. TTN hasn't edited since December 26. But I did ask Masem if he knew where TTN was.
A while ago, I told Masem about the changes to WP:V that came about after your thread about UGOPlayer at WT:V. I am talking about "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I mentioned you and said "It's just another poor policy change that came about because of Hiding, done without considering the ramifications for Wikipedia's 2.6 million+ articles." That's honestly the way I feel and I thought I should tell you personally, rather than you finding out yourself or from someone else. If I've insulted you, I'm sorry. If I think a policy is bad, I don't know how to tell the person who wrote it without possibly hurting their feelings.
I've thought of two policy proposals recently, but I'm lost on PLOT at this point, aside from contacting as many editors as I can about it, although that would not be a good idea while my user RFC is going on. I know you've suggested a poll in the past but you noted you were being ignored. Perhaps I should walk away from the issue. Perhaps I should agree not to edit or comment on any of Wikipedia's 300+ policies or guidelines for a year. Perhaps I should leave Wikipedia for six months or more. I know I should contribute to article space more. I think my replies to people can be long, but certainly no longer than Masem's. I've said rude things, but typically only when spoken to rudely. I should turn the other cheek, but I don't. I should not edit war on policy pages. Perhaps I should leave altogether.
I'm tired. So very tired. I feel like I am in Bizarro World. Randomran suggested I offer to rewrite PLOT and when I did at the talkpage of my user RFC, Masem copied it over to WT:NOT and mentioned my user RFC. That may have something to do with the fact that I begged Masem to find an admin coach. I asked Masem to remove the thread from WT:NOT, and I got jumped on. I am just about done with Wikipedia at this point.
You're an administrator, and if you have any advice you could offer me, I would appreciate it. You can email me if you like. Thanks. Although I would understand if you avoid me like the plague. Sorry for unloading on you. --Pixelface (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiding, I hope you don't mind, I changed your 3-level heading ("commissioning") over at the RFC on the fiction notability guideline to a 2-level heading. Since it's showing up at the top of people's watchlists now, I wanted people to be able to click on the section for voting, scroll to the end, and vote. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hiding. I don't know if you still care, but I have raised an RFC about this: [14] I'll let the outcome of that determine whether or not I continue to defend inclusion of the journal. --Bertrc (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on Pixelface's talk page.
A long while back there were discussions at expert retention about various brainstorming ideas.
Anyway, back then, I came up with a spark of an idea. What little is actually on-wiki is archived at User talk:Jc37/Proposals/WikiWorks.
Hope you find it interesting at least : ) - jc37 08:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a thread about plot summaries at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Since you're the editor who added WP:NOT#PLOT to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I thought you might want to know about it. I also mentioned your name there. --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the block imposed by Nightscream is a knee jerk reaction, and unfair to say the least. If you review this editor's Talk Page, you will see he has made a number of questionable calls as an administrator, and been queried regarding them. In the short term, I believe that the block needs to be reviewed as he has totally ignored the discussion I linked for him - which shows the articles are moving in another direction. It would have been nice if he had joined the discussion first, given that I have already reworked several articles. Is this really helping things move along? I also reject the claim that I am unreasonable, given that I sought an outside opinion on the Ms. Marvel image and am willing to accept that advice. In the long term, I really think Nightscream's administrator role needs to be reviewed. He means well, but he is far too emotive and the blocks smack of payback.
For your consideration.
Asgardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.179.34 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
as both Jc37 and yourself are mentioned, and I think it says a great deal about the mindset of Nightscream and what he thinks his role as an administrator is.
Regards
Asgardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.179.34 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the honesty. I've posted my reply to the block on my Talk Page. If I've gotten the formatting wrong (reply in brackets) please by all means correct it so it can be seen by an independent editor. As for Rhino...no, I don't think I own it. I just want it to be better. I even took on board the suggestion by Peregrine Fisher and pulled the titles and dates into Reference format to make for easier reading. I'm trying, friend. Comics is just a passion of mine and well... I see a bad article and think "Ha! Full rewrite!"
Asgardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.213.160 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Putting my money where my mouth is, as well as with an eye to previous discussion we've had, I made:
The former is a simple list of all stories (OK it isn't comprehensive as some were just throw away one-offs, some a page or two, which I'm not going to mention unless there is something worth saying about it) and then any that don't have their own articles can go in a section on the minor stories page. The latter is just an outline at the moment but I am aiming for a bit of background, a bit of plot and a mention of the publication history and reprinting (a lot has got republished in the Extreme Editions, which continues with the free book in the Megazine). It should stop articles on very minor stories from spinning off but it can also provide somewhere were we can marshal material (interviews, reviews) and see if anything is worth splitting off. For now I'll be largely expanding the sections and also taking a look at some of the articles with an eye to a bold merge - I believe you flagged Bix Barton and I have been wondering about the use of having an article on Go-Machine, for example. Unless I come up with something I'll just merge them in.
So that is the basic structure - a plain list for the titles/characters and then something to scoop up the minor characters/titles, with the redirects being properly categorised so these also show up in the relevant categories (I also leave a note in comments under the section header about which is the incoming link). Clearly doing something like a minor Marvel Comics character list is going to be a bigger job but this is the proof-of-concept and something I think is a viable way of dealing with articles that not only don't meet notability guidelines and don't seem to have a chance of making it (like the articles I flagged on the talk page, who seem to have appeared once or twice). Initially I'm happy to err on the side of caution but there are clearly dozens of characters in particular which are problematic. Anyway just thought I'd show you what I started and if that seems like a good model to follow we can look into rolling this out, presumably with an eye to Marvel characters and then apply it elsewhere like DC characters and titles from smaller companies (we can probably prove notability for most DC/Marvel titles but some of the titles from second and third tier companies are going to be trickier (although if they are recent and have decent PR people they can usually generate enough interest - the big constraint is then the available time we have to track the sources down). (Emperor (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC))
I'd say go for it. I have tried rating everything I come across (anything from a Stub to a B) and there is no massive outcry when you demote an article (and only about 5% of articles marked as B make the grade). I am happy to do a B-class assessment on request and having worked through the more important B-class articles, I would guess there aren't more than half a dozen actual Bs left to assess. Demoting them might get people motivated to either do it themselves or ask for it to be done. Ultimately this should lead to a lot of Cs that have been assessed (there are now more Cs assessed on the B-class criteria than there are assessed Bs) which is an important outcome too as it flags where the articles need more work. (Emperor (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
This is merely a thought, and nothing really worth responding to, but I personally found it interesting that the initial AN/I post had "cleansed" all references of discussions with me, or comments by me, from the events. You at least got a mention of being "not very helpful". (Though I suppose I can be comforted that I am noted on Emperor's talk page. And I'll say, being grouped with you, I can feel I'm in good company at least.)
Tongue in cheek aside, I hope that this will go over in the best way possible: education, learning, and simple adjustment of practice thereby. Too often these can turn into drama fests simply due to emotions running high. I'd like to hope that this will be the former and not the latter.
Anyway, I hope you're having a good day. - jc37 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Using our handy-dandy new list of books, I see you have Kirby (King of Comics) by Mark Evanier and I'm wondering what the coverage is like of The Eternals? I am drawing together resources for a big rewrite/expansion of the article (probably breaking the PH down into sections) and, while I have quite a lot of good material, this could be an important source for the Kirby years. I'm just testing the water for now but if there is some good stuff in there I'll give you a nudge sometime. (Emperor (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
But of a weird move/edit on a template you started: ((Comics topics)) as it was [21]. It may have been the subject of a discussion somewhere but as you had it set up it had comics broken down by geographical region and now it has an assorted set of comics articles cobbled on to the top. I was going to revert it all back to the way it was (which was a tightly focused and handy navigation device) but thought I might be missing something so I thought I'd kick it over to you for discussion first. (Emperor (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Just wondering if you know the Wikiquette about user signatures. I'm a little concerned about how User:JayExperience is signing his posts at the TfDs. In one case he's hiding his user name with a comic book character [22] and in another he's doing that and embedding Easter egged links to articles [23].
Thanks,
- J Greb (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on the successful Spidey GA. :) I've begun some work on Fantastic Four, so that we can get that one promoted as well. Check out the article talk page for some of my thoughts. BOZ (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
On your points:
Anyway thanks for that. (Emperor (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Our thread dropped off my talk page, but I just thought I'd check back in. I'm finding that trying to stay focussed on articles and out of the way tasks is a good way of avoiding anything contentious, as it were. I'm not really that bothered any more in which sides wins the latest wiki-drama, since it doesn't impact too much on the actual encyclopedia, which when alls said and done, is all that matters. There's some good collaboration going on at WP:COMICS at the minute that you might like to throw your weight behind? Just a thought. Hiding T 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I blank my talk page most of the time, after someone edits it, I have listened J Greb's advice and didn't feel the need to respond. BlackManta 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that I'm not objecting to the information per se, but the type of source. It's one thing to say Geoff Klock thinks the title was inspired by the Juvenal quote. Fine, he can think what he wants. However, what he actually writes is "the last page of the work reveals that the title is actually taken from the Juvenal epigraph . . ." That phrasing is problematic because it lends an authority to the comment. Looking at Klock's footnotes, he's only relying on the story itself for his observations. So how does he know that "the title is actually taken from the Juvenal epigraph"? The trade itself doesn't say that; it just shows the quote. The other sources have problems like this. We don't know for absolute certainty that it was inspired by that very quote unless someone who talked to Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons or even John Higgns says that's exactly what happened. I mean, it seems obvious, and even I personally think that the title most likely is a reference to the quote, but for all we know they ould just been thinking of nightwatchmen then worked the quote in the story because it added some nice symbolism. We don't know either way unless the creators say so. It really coems down to this: can't we find a better source? As someone with a background in history, I have to ask these sorts of questions, so I apologize if this seems like needless aggravation. But we really should find the best sort of source for this. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I was looking for places to link the article, but having difficulty.
The article you cite makes it somewhat more difficult, actually, since it's hard to tell how much of the source is meant to be "tongue in cheek". Did the article's author make up the individuals? Are they people who read back issues and presented the information (making themselves original researchers, or at best conveyers, of information from a primary source), or are they characters from the issues themselves?
As an aside, I read the related article in the telegraph, and I think it presents a nice history of the character.
One of the things that's troublesome is the idea that an orphaned article should be deleted (or at least "tagged" as such), simply because articles which would link to the article haven't been created yet. (Or perhaps themselves have been considered NN by some discussion.)
Not sure how to proceed... - jc37 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Where do we go to get TfD closes reviewed?
Some how Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:League of Assassins and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:Legion of Doom (Super Friends) just dont add up.
- J Greb (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Given the issues with these... would it be proper to protect the redirects?
- J Greb (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd tend to err on the side of caution and would want to start off targeting the characters that are obviously failing notability (like the Morlock examples I gave) which would allow me to be bold and run through the worst examples redirecting to the minor characters list (rather than fiddling around in the sandbox I could rummage together an outline pretty quickly and we could take it from there). Strictly speaking I'd count the Appendix as an independent third party source which would allow for the removal of the banner (Marvel have used the site as a source, which is good enough for me). That said looking at their appearances [30] it is pretty clear they have pretty much only appeared in and around the Force Works story from 1994-1996 and haven't appeared in anything since, so I can't see what the article is adding that isn't discussed in the main article for the story and I'd flag this as something for the second pass on merging and might be something we'd have to put up for merger (although I suspect we could still swing bold for this one), possibly in a batch - they could be controversial and I'd want a consensus behind me to stop painful back and forth redirecting/unredirecting. It might be worth sandboxing a list of characters for this second batch of mergers (I have noted a few down for the first wave on my computer but might as well open it up to others to contribute) - I'll sort this out later.
Thanks for the other additions, I'll read through them in an hour or so. (Emperor (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC))
Psst. :) BOZ (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For your recent work on ((Cite comic)). Thank you for the helpful additions. Rockfang (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for the note. I saw this on the 2000 AD forums and will definitely be picking that one up - Nick Dyer's Slaine looks great (I also had a chat with the editors and might be doing something connected with this in the future). It is an interesting development as Mills has always been adamant about people keeping their hands off his creations (there are exceptions - Nemesis the Warlock is off the table) and I wonder if he now feels he is getting more respect for his leading role in British comics. Thrill Power Overload certainly contains an awful lot of setting things straight (from an awful lot of people) and a recurring theme from Pat is the almost permanent war he has been at with editors (like the bit I dug up on Dinosty and it even contains an admission by Andy Diggle that he had overstepped the line (although partly from exasperation - I certainly wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a phone call from Mills!!). So he seems in a happy place at the moment and seems to always have something in 2000 AD at the moment - he even looked remarkably youthful on the John Hicklenton, so perhaps he has made some kind of strange magical discovery ;)
Also I dropped the Kirby: King of Comics information I posted here into a separate area [31] and will add anything else I come across. (Emperor (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
OK, I did a little more work on Fantastic Four. What else can we do? BOZ (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Per your comments on CFD, would you mind explaining the "up for dispute and resolved by consensus" thing here? (I noticed your mention of Act of Parliament in the CFD, and had decided to fix it pending a decision...)
I tried to write an explanation along the lines of "we can't infer an external consensus from interpretation of sources" and invoking WP:BRD, but I've been up for many hours & everything I put down ended up being somewhat impolite. I thought having someone relatively uninvolved step in might be better, before I started reverting again and doing something I might regret later!
Thanks muchly. Shimgray | talk | 23:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You wouldn't be able to track down the Melody Maker review for R.E.M.'s Reckoning, would you? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, your thoughts on this discussion about story spoilers would be appreicated here. Personally, I don't care if parts of the lead are rewritten, but removing "spoilers" entirely from the lead is faintly ridiculous in my opinion, and is backed up by Wikipedia:Spoiler. After all, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and over sorts of quality articles have spoilers in the lead, because the purpose of the articles is to educate, not to compell someone into watching a film or reading a story by teasing them with plot hints. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I'll try to give the article a quick once-over in the next day or so - if you want anything more substantial, I'm afraid I have a bit of a queue ;) Best, EyeSerenetalk 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You asked if I would mind toning it down. Yes, I would. I also resent your subtle implication of incivility when I am the one being attacked and stalked.
It is obvious that those edits were accompanied by reviews; the reasons for the re-assessment are described in the edit summary, and the procedures, processes and grading schemes of each individual wikiproject were followed. There is no basis for the complaint that the edits are against consensus or useless to the encyclopedia.
The comment regarding delisting of featured articles is ignorant. Since there is a process for review (WP:FAR), in which I am one of the most active editors. DrKiernan (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you've requested a peer review of Concerned. The reason I'm asking (just to explain) is that we haven't even finished acting on the last big batch of peer input we got (from the failed FA nomination). Perhaps there's something I'm missing about the function of peer reviews? Pi zero (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. Pi zero (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the heads-up. As luck would have it I was just reading it ;) Also I do have a rewrite in the pipeline (and will see if I can tempt ntnon into helping, as we have double-teamed articles like Antony Johnston and Michael Bair before. Should be easy enough to get to a B as I've already done most of the spadework. (Emperor (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the plethora of recent assessments! I was beginning to feel alone in the darkness when it came to assessments. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for merge - brand new. BOZ (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome; I found the article very interesting. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 10:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I've added my list (User:Emperor/Sandbox/Minor characters) to the see also.
Worth noting that doing this for Transformers characters is going to be tricky as they appear in other media and they have their own project. However, if we can start getting our house in order, we can always fire them the list and show them some examples of how this can work then it could get them involved with sorting out their articles.
Looking over the two lists, it does look like Marvel Comics should be the easiest to assemble and we can use the lessons learned when we move on to the DC characters. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
Hey, I saw you via my watch on that page. I completely agree with your assessments. I was wondering, though, do you know much about the warpsmiths? I was watching this page because I wanted to find out more and would appreciate if you could direct me anywhere. I only ever saw them in Miracle man, and in two A1 comics (one was a good intro, in which the Qys organized a terrorist attack to embarrass the warpsmiths. The other was an odd pastiche of the Warpsmith mourning rituals) --Bertrc (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean admin super-powers? Ah, no thanks, that's OK, but I do consider the offer is very meaningful. :) BOZ (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Noticed you assessed William Donahey today, an article I expanded 5 fold on 17 May 2008. Could you assess Jones Law Office and Woodson Law Office if you have some time. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I expanded the lead on the article. Can you give me some ideas what it would take to bring the article to B Class? Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Following on from our discussion [32] and the creation of ((comicnav)) I reverted the changes so the comics by region box is again just focused on that topic which seems a tidy solution. The other one holds general comics topics like format and genre. (Emperor (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the note. I tend to only really know the comics inspired by the classic boys and girls comics and I'm always pleasantly surprised to see how many new and experimental small press comics there are. So I've not heard of this and I would have thought it would have been mentioned in the Bugpowder blog (not a sign of notability but a sign it has made a blip on the small press British comics scene) and it hasn't "jones+comix"+site%3Abugpowder.com, which is a bad sign. I did a Google and didn't find anything. Their site makes it sound intriguing but it is failing all round. (Emperor (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Giovannini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Edcolins (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I saw the link business and was scratching my head, even though I was aware of the issue from LitG. As far as I can tell it is someone pushing an agenda and, as far as I understand it, there is no impact of the Bill on Watchmen and only a very tangential connection from Lost Girls to Moore to Watchmen.
It does seem worth an article but it would be something I'd personally shy away from as such issues can be the focus of... special interest groups #cough# who would be interested in putting their own spin on such articles (and of course, other people who oppose them). Which, of course, shouldn't stop us from starting articles but it might make keeping it on track and neutral a struggle.
I'll keep an eye out for more coverage. It would also be worth dropping a note into the manga and anime project because there are a small handful of comics that would get hit but it might have impact on a swathe of manga (although to be honest some of the more eye-boggling bizarre and extreme material isn't distributed in the West anyway). (Emperor (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
Well, a little more powerful, at least. ;) OK, as discussed previously, I have been considering your offer of support on becoming an admin, thinking about it on occasion during my busy time which has finally begun dying down. With the endorsement of three good admins with whom I have worked and respect, I can't simply say "No" as was my first instinct, so I had to give it some thought.
I could see some uses for admin-powers that would be helpful in what I do. As Emperor mentioned in the previous discussion, I could restore the edit histories of articles for merges (I have asked a couple dozen admins to do this for me previously, and it didn't seem a terribly controversial thing), or likewise for articles deleted via PROD. Moving articles over redirects is another thing he mentioned that would also be useful, as I have on occasion found it frustrating to see an article at a silly name with a better name under a redirect.
However, I'm not sure what else I would do with them, as I think these little things are not enough of a reason for anyone to want to support making me an admin. Perhaps you could give me a better idea of why I, specifically, would be valued as an admin and not just as another regular user? I do a lot of work sometimes, in various ways for my favorite WikiProjects and subjects, but I am not fabulously well acquainted with nor particularly interested in many of these rules that a lot of people put a lot of value in, and operate somewhat with a WP:IAR attitude often enough. I have received a number of barnstars for my activities, and have contributed to over a dozen successful GAs in the last few months, which has been the most rewarding thing I've accomplished on this place.
Also, I don't see myself taking on much in the way of additional responsibilities outside of that which I'd want to help with anyway. I would probably want to help fight vandalism, as well as stop people from inserting clearly POV and OR stuff in articles. I've seen opposes on RfAs where one person or another thinks that someone should be doing something specific before being accepted as an admin, such as the baffling vote in Thumperward's recent RfA where someone said he hadn't spent enough time on newpage patrol (see oppose #32). Silly complaint, I think; I plan to retain free will and do what I will, and not do the things I'm not interested in. :) I may get into AfD closings, although I don't really want to get into closing anything that looks like a delete as I am loathe to do so.
I think my past (and likely about to resume?) interactions with G.c would be a reason for a number of people to oppose me or support me - although, likely as not, such individuals would already be voting that way because of the inclusionist/deletionist partisanship. Other than this individual, I can't say that I've had any real issues with any other users (except that guy who was following G.c around for awhile, oh what's his name anyway, something about Lord of the Flies...) and I think more people like and respect me than not - although I have never guaged it effectively, so I may be in for a surprise. :) I would intend to make my philosophies clear for those who wish to judge me based on that.
So, tell me what you think. (I am open to input from others as well.) I can live with myself either way, just fine. :) If I can provide more and better service to the Wiki as an admin, then great, but otherwise I will continue as I always have. BOZ (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
So, if you still wanted to nominate me, I would accept and we can see where that goes. Otherwise, the status quo never hurt. Either way, thanks again for the initial offer. :) BOZ (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Great - thanks for that. I redlinked Sha (comics) and have more bits and bobs to add to that. Good to see the same editor added the Requiem Chevalier Vampire image. Time to break out the infoboxes. (Emperor (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
Someone posted to WP:AN a "call to arms", asking all editors to start commenting at AfD. Apparently there are so few commenters that things are now consistently getting relisted?
And so I immediately thought of you : ) - jc37 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Following on from my comments [35] and previous discussion, should we have an overview page for the Comics Project. For example
What sources are good for what (although we can go into more detail on individual sources in the notes at WP:CMC/REF):
How to deal with articles that seem to be failing but look to be worthy of inclusion:
I think the underlying principle is to:
There are clearly going to be articles added that are deletion fodder (comics created by people that only get seen by their friends) but that is usually a pretty minor part of what goes on and usually get a rapid consensus in AfD, our main concern is for everything else.
With that in mind we might as well start "List of minor Marvel Comics characters" (or just "Minor Marvel Comics characters" as it is less of a list) and build it up as we find things - I don't think we necessarily need a long and/or comprehensive list before starting on some of the obvious failing articles (like the ones I flagged on my list). I suspect we'll start to see they start making things smoother (there is a current AfD it come in useful for). (Emperor (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
Of course - I've missed that, my apologies. Have you already started switching everyone to ((user)) format? Because I have. If you already have, then you or I can send each other the part's we've started. -- A talk/contribs 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you were involved with the defunct WP:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. I've proposed something similar (before I was aware of the old one that doesn't seem to have got off the ground). Perhaps you could comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Policy. Comments on what happened to the old project would be helpful. Thanks. Rd232 talk 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Spielberg's the most famous moviemaker in the world, I'm not sure if we need a pic of him reiterating he's been wanting to make Tintin since the '80s. But the graphic designer in me has an idea to hammer this is a meeting of two filmmaker gods; a picture of Steven saying that, and a picture of Peter with the quote in the caption. I'm really fine with it as it is, but do as you wish if you like my suggestion. Alientraveller (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I probably should have dropped this by here before.
I honestly don't know if he (or his comic strip) is "notable" (noteworthy?), but if there are actual sources out there, it might be restorable per DRV. Besides wikipedia-like mirrors and the like, the best I could find were sites which "used to" disply the comic strip.
As I said, dunno if it'll prove worth the effort. (And honestly don't recall ever encountering the strip outside of Wikipedia.) But thought it was worth asking your thoughts. - jc37 03:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you check out what I wrote in this link; and then refer me to the appropriate administrator. It'll all be clear when you see what I wrote, and please don't forget to read the article if you don't already know what it is. Okay, I'll tell you. Charitable unless I'm from another planet means go out of you're way to help people, which if you read the article sounds more like decency. I mean here I am thinking that this article existing (so that I wouldn't have to write it) solves my problem. And then I realize that this article existing is the source of my (and a lot of editor's problems). Like I said, just go over the article and then what I wrote to see what's going on. Thanks. Lighthead þ 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It is that article,but I disagree with the current name it should be called fata mosque bombing,FATA is arge area,it just like saying 2009 Punjab sri Lankan team attack.will discuss on article talk page.yousaf465'
Hi, I'm not sure why my page doesn't deem worthiness when there's so much useless information on here! Not many sunday league teams can be bothered to actually make a wiki page. I'm pretty sure that all the info I left was accurate too so i don't see what the problem is.
If you could please send me a message saying why my football team, non-league or not, should not be on Wikipedia then I promise not to submit it again.
After all, when information can state that Michael Winner has been killed by crocodiles and yet nothing is done about this blatant lie i don't see why deleting a possible template to a sunday league team's history is a good idea? Iangleave (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries matey.
You still didn't answer why so much innane drivel that can also be found within books, newspapers and the like is allowed on here but thanks for the quick response anyway.
Keep up your Hitler-esque streak for wiping out 'inferior' pages Iangleave (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you do your homework I got to give it to you. I read Mac Con Midhe, looks good to me, but I say that as a Paddy! Thanks for the spelling fixes by the way, there are probable a few more on my page if you want to revisit....Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to close it as soon as it is tomorrow UTC. Now it should stay so everyone gets a chance to see it. There was no DRV, though I could probably open one in the spirit of today. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(I apologise in advance, but I just have to : )
So, you closed it as delete...
Could I ask how you weighed the arguments? - jc37 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You know, we probably need to strike this whole discussion. hilarious as it may be to us, I have a few beans here that think they might want to grow into a stalk of some kind. Have a cow you'd like to trade? Oh, you named her "Wikipedia", how appropriate : )
(There's an old cartoon about the car of tomorrow, and when they get to the "seal beam headlights", the response of the animator is what I'm feeling about this discussion right now : ) - jc37 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to send this to AfD since you have added a source. That answers the PROD complaint in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to say that I was impressed by your reference to The Treachery of Images. Give yourself the Wikipedia equivalent of a slap on the back. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I've seen an editor argue that, since there is not (yet) a discussion about a contentious revert, edit-warring is therefore the way to go. I'm not sure what to make of your logic, and I'm hoping I've overlooked something. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to contest this prod. WP:PROD says to complain to you, then go to DRV if you don't undelete it. I've never seen one not speedily undeleted at DRV, so the PROD policy may be out of date. Cheers, WilyD 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
As you were suggesting to give Gavin the benefit of the doubt elsewhere, I'd like you to look over his changes to NOT#PLOT, and whether they meet or change the previous (hard wrought) consensus on the text. (There is also a somewhat related talk page discussion.) - jc37 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the purposes of full protection is to prevent editors from exceeding 3RR, which has been exceeded/met several times during this dispute. While it's great that discussion is ongoing, it doesn't help to engage in discussion and edit war simultaneously. Thus, I feel protection is necessary at this time. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hiding, Could you go back to the DrV and check out the (new?) sources I've added to the talk page. AFAIK they weren't discussed in depth (if at all) as they aren't on-line. But it now seems clear that he meets WP:N.
Also, I would point out that the closing arguments had a factual error "Almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before" just isn't true. More than half of the arguments included notability or WP:BIO or other inclusion guidelines. Not a huge deal as the issue he raises was significant to the discussion, but maybe not the best teaching moment :-). Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to this, but I wonder if you know why the Ethel Hays article you made a small edit on shows the number 200 at the beginning of the article. I see it probably is connected with the image size, but don't know why the number is caused to appear at the top of the text. Artofmine (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked there, then did a "null edit" which at least for now seems to have corrected the issue.
Thanks for taking Celtstock to AfD, Hiding. I should have checked if there was a previous PROD on the article. I appreciate you spotting this and doing the work of starting the deletion discussion. Sandolsky (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to improve the article FC de Rakt. There is currently an AfD vote about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt if you wish to contribute. ðarkuncoll 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A more than the usual explanation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player) was greatly appreciated. I wish everybody took the time to explain exactly why they are doing what they are doing. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you were trying to do in your recent edit to Chuck Austen, but it didn't work and left a "150" in the text, so I reverted. DS (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for being cranky toward you in a response (since re-edited) at Template talk:Episode. My edit summary with regard to the revision explicates what was "up". Certainly nothing personal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I won't contest the prods, the articles . I added a source to the article about some law of double citizenship but I can't expand it because I don't know the details, could you please check it out and make a good description? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was away for a few days, but have now replied on the noticeboard to your comments about the MZMcBride decision. I hope the response is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the advice I'll get around to doing just that. Lighthead þ 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble with Compare link. However, it still works for me (I tried several random articles to confirm). I suspect that one of your other scripts is conflicting. If you comment out everything else, compare link should work. Then, you can reenable everything gradually until you find out what the conflict(s) are. Or, of course, you can just disable compare link. The point is I think the combination is what's causing the error. Superm401 - Talk 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you send the link to where I didn't use an edit summary? I don't recall any where I didn't, but obviously there is at least one. :) Apologies. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Patrik Doçi has played in BiH top division. Matthew_hk tc 11:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
He played in UEFA Cup and Champions League qualifying, passed the notability criteria, please restore the version. Matthew_hk tc 11:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate to sound ignorant, but could you possibly point me to an example where I didn't use the edit summary? I'm not questioning you- I have been known to neglect the edit summary before but, just for future reference...! Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for offerings- We provide several independent sources from the Improv Festivals we were selected to perform at. This includes Upright Citizens Brigade's Del Close Improv Marathon and the Seattle Festival of Improv. [User:Megapixel] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding in my recent Request for adminship, thank you for nominating me! I hope that I do at least a halfway decent job, at least well enough to make you feel like you made the right decision. :) BOZ (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I hadn't realised- I've changed my preferences now to notify me if I leave a blank edit summary. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the clarification! HJ Mitchell (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yo, big guy, generally when you nominate someone to become an admin, you actually vote for him too. Just a thought. :) John Carter (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars with some interest, and I noticed that you reversed your claims that the list fell afoul of WP:NFCC. Would you mind explaining (probably on the AfD itself) your reasoning for the change of heart? Any closer would probably like the relevant discussions close at hand. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You merged this page with Kent County Council. I think I would have merged it too- but with a little round bin. My reasoning is that if we promote this fluff for one KCC department (a statutory function) we should have a section on each department, such as trading standards, audit, environment and waste. Is there a precedent why this must be kept? It strikes me that it is the work of a bored employee who is trying to gain brownie points. Then there is the link to a part of the previous website! Anyway Footpaths is a District Council function. I bow to your experience- but couldn't we just zap it? --ClemRutter (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's some very impressive arguing on the respective AfD pages of Chronology of Star Wars and Star Wars sequel trilogy! I'm not entirely sure what your stance is on the former, though you've clearly stated it on the latter. I couldn't help but chuckle at your comments on infinity and nothing! This is certainly one of the most interesting debates I've had for a while! Kind regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that your move in the Reverse Association game, associating "Long pig" and "Long Island Sound" to get "Oink" was inspired! It's one of the best I've seen in a long while! Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might like to check it out, I've adapted it for live use... Let's see how it goes =) –xeno talk 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to respond, just wondering if they are : ) - jc37 09:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, if yours were... : ) - jc37 09:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, a little humour was apparently rather little : )
I used you in an example, and was making a "funny" here.
As I said, no need to reply, just was smiling, and thought to include you : ) - jc37 09:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little frustrated about the outcome of the AfD for this article, which you closed today. I understand this is no fault of yours, I just wanted to ask for advice, if you can give any. My frustration stems from a couple of things. First, I have a problem with the fact that five people (The Earwig, JJL, DGG, Benjiboi, and DHowell) all voted against deletion, and yet none of them have ever, ever contributed to the article, and are not likely to volunteer their services to improve it. I am also particularly frustrated with DHowell because it seems that he only joined the discussion to force his inclusionism on everyone else. I don't consider myself a deletionist, but I am sure that I am right in saying that the topic is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article, which is why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. The only sources that DHowell presented are plainly self-publicity, which means that they're not independent of their topic, and I pointed this out at the AfD. DHowell responded by saying that "The guideline does not give an exemption for 'publicity' coverage," when in fact it does. He also said that "None of the newspapers were required to print this 'self-publicity' in their papers, they chose to do so because they felt it was 'worthy of notice'," while seemingly ignoring this part of the guideline. (I unfortunately did not get to put down these repsonses on the AfD page before the discussion was closed, but even if I had, I doubt that it would have changed any votes, and it was clear that not enough people were going to vote on it to sway the consensus one way or the other before it closed.)
I'm going to put a notability tag on the article for now, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Do you have an idea? Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could clarify your post on the discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Deandre Brunston. The current "discussion" seems to be mostly people with differences of opinion "talking past" each other. I think it would be helpful to read the whole discussion and clarify exactly how/where we disagree so we can actually reach a consensus. This AfD seems to be headed down the "no consensus" path right now, which I always like to avoid! Thanks! Cazort (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hiding, In a summary on NOT#PLOT you wrote:
strike, its obvious too many people favour battleground tactics which should be abhorrent per policy
I was A) wondering what prompted that and B) if you feel I'm doing something wrong in those discussions. You seem like a reasonable (if cranky :-) ) person, so I thought I'd ask for a reality check. Thanks. Hobit (talk)
Hi, T Hiding. You may be interested to know that this RFC is about to be launched on the talk page, with Kirill's knowledge ... except that I'm unsure how to launch it!
Your concerns appear to go further than the topic of the RFC, but I wanted to constrain its scope to directly relevant issues of the structure and conduct of hearings. Tony (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProjects Afghanistan and Alternative Views really do not need such a notification. I notice that you state in your mass posting an apology for having to post to ALL WikiProjects. This seems like lack of discernment to me. Surely, the WikiProjects to which such a notification is posted could be radically limited? __meco (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone else has found the postings disruptive, I would like to point out I have ceased them apart from to WikiProjects related to culture and the arts. Hiding T 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input on the problems with Jess Nevins - as he explained at User_talk:Jessnevins he is editing his own article with vandalism and then immediately reverting it as an example in class on how easy it is to vandalise Wikipedia, or something like that. He was banned for this and if you look at the page's history [36] you'll see two other accounts (the most recent one banned) and a couple of IPs all of which are doing the same. The accounts are clearly his sock puppets carrying right on where he left off.
Now Jess Nevins clearly has a lot he could contribute and I'd love to find a way to win him around because the next would be checkuser, blocks and locking the page down so anonymous IPs. I have now tried this twice now (as did I and another editor at User talk:Kenfuruta). I have tried everything I can but thought there might be another way. Also would it be worth undeleting User_talk:Jessnevins as it does explain what is going on?
Feel free to reply here (I'll point another editor here too) (Emperor (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
Thank you for the message on my talk page [37]. After due consideration, I have revised my earlier decision and semi-protected the article for 36 hours. Please take this time to generate consensus on the talk page, that way if the IP resumes POV-pushing once protection expires, you can warn him or her (a la the ((uw-npov1)) series of warnings) and then report the IP as necessary to WP:AIV (note that administrators processing AIV reports have a quick and easy time adjudicating block requests where an editor or IP has ignored four escalating levels of warnings and still continued their disruptive editing, especially if diffs are supplied that show the disruptive behavior). Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on trying to create a unified guideline for what fiction articles are - something that's more fundamental than WAF (which is just a MoS for fiction), and instead deals with the basic problem of what it means to cover things that are not real in an encyclopedia, and what fundamental issues that involves. My hope is that by clarifying that, dealing with the notability issue becomes easier. I've got a draft at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction. I'd welcome any comments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question. Is there a way to find deleted articles. I am talking in reference to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam. This article was initially created on April 4th 2009 and was deleted on April 8th 2009 on the grounds that it was not encyclopedic and the message also said don't recreate this article again. The very same day User:White_Adept added it back. He is a POV pusher who is not afraid to break wikipedia rules and even arbitration rulings. This article was part of the Sathya Sai Baba article. It was later removed due to unreliability and BLP concerns. Most of the sources used for this article are unreliable and also include banned material from the Sathya Sai Baba article. If we can find the deleted copy I think this article may qualify for speedy deletion as it was already deleted once. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advising or contributing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Hiding,
I'm surprised and confused of your act of deletion of Mushfiqul Alam page suddenly which had been reviwed by many editors for years! You could delete the parts of the article that you thought inappropiate but deleting the full page really surprised me. Could you please undelete the page with contents that passes Wiki Guidelines at least?
Wikibd (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Wikebd
Dear Mr. Hiding,
It appears User:Ragib became angry after you restored the article and destroying even his own earlier edits and reviews of the article. Even after I added information with public references, he is deleting those. His thoughts for reference is limited by Internet only. Newspapers of Bangladesh don't publish everything on the Internet that they publish at their paper versions. He is also thinking I'm "Mr. Mushfiq" which I am not actually!
Can you help to protect the article from the arrogant person? Wikibd (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Wikibd
Progress is slow at WP:NOT, but it's there. There are a number of people who are now talking about middle ground, rather than pushing for one of the 50/50 options to win out. My advice is to distinguish the consensus builders from those who are simply trying to score points in a debate with no judges. You'll be able to tell the consensus builders because they'll admit there's no consensus to outright remove the policy, but they'll also be supportive (or at least accepting) of a re-write or move. You'll be able to recognize the debate club if they're still trying to argue about whether to keep it at all.
Don't take the WP:Bait. If you see a comment from someone who is trying to stonewall or filibuster the discussion -- inclusionist or deletionist -- try to ignore it. If you absolutely can't, my advice is to keep your reply to one line or less, explaining that you don't think their viewpoint has consensus, and/or advising them to focus on something that does.
It looks like you've scaled back your time at WP:NOT. But if you find yourself with the time to join back in, try to throw your weight behind people pushing for a compromise. Reward open-mindedness with your attention. Don't reward trolling, filibustering, and obstructionism, or you'll just end up in a long debate that drags the conversation towards "no consensus". (Reply back here.) Randomran (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you discuss your recent change to WP:FICT on the talk page? My understanding is that previous wording was cribbed from WP:INUNIVERSE, so I am not sure why you are reverting it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since you were involved in something similar before (which never went anywhere), I thought I'd let you know that WP:PROJPOL is in the painful process of being born. If you could help out and give it some chance of survival, that would be cool. Rd232 talk 01:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say I enjoyed your essay User:Hiding/What notability is not and found it to be helpful. Thanks for writing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested. - jc37 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I had spoken to you about the following article some time back - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam. Finally this article is being discussed for being deleted. I would appreciate greatly if you could contribute to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam. I do really hope this article is successfully deleted. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It is being reviewed now. There are quite a few requests for content and I was wondering if you had anything that could help. Cheers. (Emperor (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
DreamGuy brought up ((plot)) and I told him who created that template and when. And I didn't know who created that template until DreamGuy brought it up and I looked. I don't think I called your character into question above (although I did say that you added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy when there was no consensus for it to be policy, and I've already explained my view of that to you on this talkpage, and at User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT [38]).
If you want to dig out some diffs, you may find this edit range of yours (and this edit range to your talkpage) useful. Personally, I'd like to know more about the events leading up to your WP:NOT#PLOT proposal, like this thread at WT:COMICS, this thread at WT:COMICS, this thread at WT:WAF you created, and maybe even some of the events surrounding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. I'd be happy if you set the record straight.
It seems to me that your WP:NOT#PLOT proposal was about issues editors were having at WikiProject Comics. If someone wants to propose WP:NOT#PLOT as WikiProject Comics guidance over at WT:COMICS, fine with me — but then you'd have to explain how WP:NOT#PLOT relates to this article, which survived this AFD (which you signed off on). Category:Storylines in comics has 329 articles under it.[39]. Looking through AFDs for articles in Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, I have not found any where there was consensus to delete [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Besides, Category:Fiction is much bigger than just comics. Why should every article under Category:Fiction (which had over 1.07 million articles under it as of April 16, 2009) have to suffer because of some petty arguments in a thread at WikiProject Comics where ChrisGriswold and Markeer mentioned making a policy?
I am really sorry for that. I left my table for 15 minutes, when I come back, my PC is in the sleeping mode and I just clicked the mouse, and then continue my work. Haven't that I noticed that I inadvertently click the screen in which the cursor is pointed on the rollback feature. Again, I am really sorry. I just reviewed my watchlist and saw that I have a message, and really did not know that I made a mistake. I really apologize for my carelessness. I hope I can keep up with that.
Again, sorry. I never intended to do the reversion. Really really sorry that you have to undo my edit. - One big walking mistake, ax (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Got anything for this one? It's up at GA and needs some work. BOZ (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering what you thought about what I say here: [53], there looks to be a lot of suspicious activity from a number of SPAs (there are others who edited that page like the "Quiddity" one) which, if confirmed, would breaches of WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY (I'd probably throw in his "media consultant" for good measure). However, I did stumble across after going to add a link I picked up at Lying in the Gutters [54] and the section ("Puppet Government") deals with accusations of sock puppetry directed at the subject of the article, so I wanted a second set of eyes on it to make sure the piece didn't colour my interpretation (although I'm sure I'd come to the same conclusion if I'd found the link independently) and was wondering what you thought about the strength of the case and whether it is worth running past Checkuser.
Feel free to reply here. (Emperor (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
Looks like:
Hobit (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I just don't think mediation is an appropriate tool in this case. I think we need to face the reality that fiction notability, as such, is a no consensus issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
An article you significantly contributed too, Graphic novel, has been delisted as a Good Article following an individual WP:GAR as part of the GA project quality task force GA Sweeps effort. This reasons this article was delisted have been detailed at Talk:Graphic novel/GA1. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I was looking at an edit you made to the game Word Before last [[55]], where you reverted an edit by a user, stating that only one word should be played at a time.
You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the user only added one word to each game, and placed two words to start a new game, both of which are allowed. I originated the game a couple of years ago so I've clarified the rules to say that users should only place one word per game.
Thanks,
Knaw (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I had a lot more typed up (about the parties of and events surrounding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic), but I'll leave it out for now. Please don't edit User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, but you're welcome to copy and paste the text onto a subpage in your userspace and reply in-line there if you would like. I'll even link to your page from /On NOTPLOT if you want.
Here's what I want to know: If "people creating articles specifically to detail plots of individual story arcs" was the problem, did making WP:NOT#PLOT policy solve it? No, it didn't. X-Men: Eve of Destruction is still here. Annihilation (comics) is still here. Superman & Batman: Generations is still here. House of M is still here. Speaking of Planet Hulk, it was redirected by ChrisGriswold on August 10, 2006 [56], unredirected by Gman124 on November 29, 2006 [57], redirected by Gman124 on December 12, 2006 [58], unredirected by an IP on December 13, 2006 [59], redirected by ChrisGriswold on December 28, 2006 [60], unredirected by Rtkat3 on March 2, 2009 [61], then redirected by ThuranX on March 3, 2009 [62]. It currently redirects to Hulk (comics)#Planet Hulk and World War Hulk. Do any of those articles meet the current version (or any version) of WP:NOT#PLOT? Does it even matter if they do or not?
Did turning WP:NOT#PLOT into policy create any problems? Yes. The most notable being E&C1 and E&C2, which created additional problems. Plus, AFD discussions like these[63][64] being thrown out[65], discussions being ignored, articles deleted, simply because WP:NOT#PLOT was present in WP:NOT. What I don't understand is why you didn't just write up some WikiProject Comics guidance like you asked about here. You took a specific problem, and then ballooned it to all of of Wikipedia. You did the same thing in April 2006 when you proposed that third-party sources line in WP:V because of one article.
Sometimes people add things to policies and guidelines to win an argument. And I think you may have added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT to win an argument. You said this edit seems to speak for itself well enough. I agree. I think it shows your motive for proposing WP:NOT#PLOT. I also think these two comments[66] [67] of yours at WT:COMICS, which you made days before you proposed WP:NOT#PLOT, show your motive for proposing WP:NOT#PLOT. It looks to me that you were having an argument, and you wanted one up on the other guy. You've done this elsewhere too. You proposed that third-party sources line in WP:V because you wanted to win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article (which was deleted anyway). Please stop editing policies so you can tip an argument in your favor. It's despicable.
Maybe your motives are meaningless, maybe none of it matters. But WP:NOT#PLOT didn't fly in June 2006 and it didn't fly in June 2009 either. So someone created Superman & Batman: Generations I and Superman & Batman: Generations II. And you redirected[68] [69] them to Superman & Batman: Generations. I probably would have redirected them too. But has WP:NOT#PLOT improved Superman & Batman: Generations? By adding WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT, you basically screwed over just about every article under Category:Fiction, because nearly all of them will have a plot summary, and that's often the first thing in an article. Especially when it comes to articles about fictional characters. Topical sentence, plot summary.
You say it's the consensus that matters. Okay. Did the recent straw poll show that WP:NOT#PLOT has consensus to be policy? --Pixelface (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
And regarding some of the others things you said here, I look at like this: Category:Storylines in comics has 329 articles in it. If you think there's a "problem" with those articles and you want to propose a policy (or even better, WikiProject guidance) that applies to those 329 articles, fine. But Category:Fiction has over 1 million articles under it. And we are talking about a million articles here. You've edited just over 2,600 articles. Even if you want to dismiss Category:Fiction as a whole, Category:Fictional has over 63,000 articles under it.[70] Go to this tool on the toolserver, type in the category name, and it outputs an article count, searching up to 10 sub-categories deep.
Articles under Category:Fictional will certainly have plot summaries. But so will almost every article under Category:Fiction (the 16,000+ articles under Category:Fiction writers being a large exception). How many were created before WP:NOT#PLOT came to be? Why propose a retroactive "solution" to 1,000,000 articles when the problem is 329 articles? Why should any of those articles have to face deletion because someone created House of M (story) years ago? You didn't localize WP:NOT#PLOT to comics. Have you ever considered that that's why the issue has been so divisive?
We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia together. Not a rulebook on how to write an encyclopedia. And why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing a rulebook on how to do it anyway? --Pixelface (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It is my strong belief that the present situation on notplot is unacceptable, and I'd like to be able to work together more to remedy it. Let me clarify what I mean. I do not personally have a strong opinion on the proper way to deal with NOTPLOT. However, it is unacceptable that there is no clear consensus on any direction on the topic, and I believe that this needs to be rectified. With that in mind, I'll make a few comments / requests.
You and others have focused very intensely on the recent straw poll in the RFC. Lets consider, practically, what that straw poll actually does. Consider first that the straw poll was clearly split. There was no consensus in either direction. You have argued that this demonstrates a lack of consensus, which aught to default in the 'do not include' direction. However, remember that there is no binding content resolution on Wikipedia. Thus, even if there is some ideal that policies should be removed if consensus for them becomes questionable (which I take no position on at this time), there is absolutely no way of enforcing that ideal. The only relevant Wikipedia policy is on editing against consensus, not refusing to edit in the absence of consensus, so there is no "conduct" issue that would allow conduct resolution processes such as arbcom to intervene. In a nutshell, what I am saying is that like it or not the only way that we will get progress in any direction is to demonstrate an actual consensus for change, which certainly requires more support than a slight majority.
In order to accomplish above, it is going to be necessary for people on your side to do more than simply say "remove" and for people on the other side to do more than simply say "keep". I am not saying that there should be some automatic "middle option" beloved by everyone. I am simply saying that repeatedly calling for outright removal (or the opposite on the other side) practically speaking accomplishes nothing and takes time and effort away from efforts to develop a real resolution process. What I would suggest might be more helpful is to focus on the principles that you believe must be reflected by whatever the outcome is. Instead of issuing general statements against notplot, describe the problems you feel are caused by this section that must be removed in any ultimate resolution. They will probably still be in disagreement with others, but they still will be more likely to help us find a consensus position than the serial keep/remove debates.
Please understand that this is not intended as criticism. This is obviously an issue that people see has having really broad consequences for WP, so it is natural that tensions get high and that people are going to be uncomfortable with anything but what they see as a complete success. I just would like us all to acknowledge the reality of the situation: to get something accomplished we have to work together; on WP there really is no other way. Locke9k (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You've only found one dinky source. The article needs several non-trivial sources, and I ain't finding any. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I finally started an idea I mentioned on the Comics project talk page. :) Feel free to have a go, do whatever you like to make it look better/more functional/whatever, or offer suggestions. BOZ (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
YEA!!!! ... we're finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel! I'll be happy to take a look later today when time permits. Glad to hear it! Cheers. ;) — Ched : ? 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you have several automatic entries on discussion pages regarding quality scales. In many, if not all of these, the word "assessment" is incorrectly spelled "assesment." Can you please fix? It's not a major issue, granted, but it still would look better fixed. Boomshadow (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Just be clear, here's what I meant:
"I have just speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail (DC Comics) (2nd nomination). I want to flag the situation up since the article was nominated one day after a deletion debate had been closed as No consensus regarding the same article."
So far so good.
"The article had been nominated both times by TTN (talk · contribs), "
Fair enough.
I.e. ->renom may be suspect given user's background.
Then, acknowledgement of perfectly understandable renom:
"TTN makes pertinent points regarding why he relisted in the deletion debate,"
I.e. renom may be suspect given user's background and an invitation for review based on user history not on reasonableness of renomination.
"I offer up both my close of the debate and the swift renomination for review and comment, given my concern and also the possibility that such concern has biased me. Hiding T 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)"
That is what I meant by an imputation. Others may well disagree. Either way, the matter can be safely dropped. Eusebeus (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back sooner - I was off on a jaunt round the NE.
Anyway the article seems unecessary as it covering the same ground as Modern Age of Comic Books (which needs a lot more work), so I'd suggest just doing a merge (although as it seems mainly OR I'd mainly just switch it to a redirect and if anything is missing and can be sourced then drop it in when the source arises). (Emperor (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
Great work on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-17/Discussion report. Although it looks like the wider audience has chimed in supporting deletion of my Vogue templates, your efforts serve the project well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, thanks for a great job with the discussion report.--ragesoss (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Fourthified. Though I really liked that bloggy link last week or two as well. However, I appreciate this snapshot of the state of things. Please keep it up! :) Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedian to the core, I like it :) --Kwekubo (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Pile on kudos. Excellent work on the Discussion Report. We've been needing something like this for a while. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping whittle down the unevaluated comics articles. We're really making some progress now! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You rock! Thanks for being bold the first time and raising issues with my original revisions; and thanks for being an open-minded collaborator and supporting the current version.
It's funny -- I have to chip away at these pillars one at a time -- just minutes ago, someone restored virtually the original text of the fifth pillar, and now I get to have that conversation. :) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Richey on stage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, publishing happens by around Monday 15:00 UTC, but it's generally my policy to wait for anything that needs more work as long as publishing happens by 23:59 UTC Monday. The nominal deadline of 03:00 UTC is basically so that I can give a closer look to anything that's ready by then.--ragesoss (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you good sir so much for writing this report, it must have taken a lot of effort and I found it very valuable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.107.24 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I do hereby award this Barnstar to Hiding for their excellent work on the Discussion Reports of the Wikipedia Signpost. Through extensive research, cataloguing and effective, clear and concise summarizing of the various discussions and debates throughout the English Wikipedia Community, Hiding provides an important community service and resource, bringing to light many issues for the participation of a broader group of editors. Hiding's efforts should be commended and held up as an example of conscientious reporting for Signpost editors. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
I would have awarded the the Signpost Barnstar, but as I am not a signpost editor or contributor I don't feel qualified to do so. I hope that you keep up the great work with the discussion report; with your editing, it has rapidly become an invaluable resource. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, if you want to delete it, considering I am effectively the only editor who worked on the page, I would have no objections. Tagging as inactive would be just as acceptable to me, of course. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What is your purpose in ridiculing another editor by selecting typos and annotating them with (sic), then publishing them to a wide variety of Wikipedians via Signpost, such as [71]? b is next to n on the keyboard. An omitted space signifies little. I stipulate that I am not a perfect typist. So be it. Please learn to deal with substance rather than form. It seems mean and malicious. It must greatly bolster your ego that you have never once (?) posted an imperfect edit. Edison (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hiding, I figured since you seem to have taken over writing the Discussion reports for the Signpost, that you'd appreciate a heads-up about the discussion at Template talk:Navbox#Usability and Accessibility to address several usability/accessibility issues ((Navbox)) currently has. Cheers! 「ダイノガイ千?!」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
HI. Couldn't help but notice you asked 14 people to comment on the television schedules debate at WP:NOT. Just curious as to what motivated you, how you chose the people, what you feel about canvassing? Hiding T 08:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed the cleanup you did at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines - thank you. ;) — Ched : ? 10:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
After reverting, I found the two words. But this IS a game. Your continuing reverting it is beyond annoying. Please, it's a game, just let it go. 65.65.230.52 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
'lo guys,
I'm cross posting this to BOZ, Doczilla, Emperor, Hiding, and Jc37 because I'd like some additional admin-level input on something that ThuranX dropped on my talk page.
What he posted is at User talk:J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and it deals with information that' come up at Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot. ThuranX's post provides a direct link to the touch off edit/confession.
Frankly, I find the information more than a little frustrating. But before moving forward I would like some input from other admins that have had to deal with these two. Admins other' than the one (Nightscream) currently involved in the edit war on Red Hulk.
Just try and keep this in one place I've set up a subhead under ThuranX's post to mey talk.
Thanks in advance for any input you have to offer.
- J Greb (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds like a great idea. Of course, Request for Comments don't start with Wikipedia; they trace back to the origins of the Internet and the open calls for feedback on common protocols and standards. The fact that we adopted them is a mark of the hacker origins of the community. But it'd be interested to try to trace how they evolved on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to edit it; I actually just finished a book that touches on the pre-WP RfCs and their significance.--ragesoss (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hiding/Archive_2008 in the 2000 AD titles Category. I'm not sure whats going on. 202.134.253.55 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Smallman12q (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Amazing coincidence: I'm just getting back into Wiki editing today after several months -- and only about a week since your post! Great minds think alike, to coin a cliche. I hope you're well, and I'm very, very glad to see you still here, keeping standards high and being a great, conscientious editor and a calming, reasoning voice to other, less veteran editors. I've just created a page for the comics-inspired play Warp!, and though I have to run out now, I hope to expand on it (and certainly to have everybody else jump in!) later today or tomorrow. With all my regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Last week you mentioned this discussion. Most respondents felt there was no problem and no cause for action. I have opened up a new discussion about length preferences with a set of data clarifying the problem. This is a new discussion. Separately there is a discussion about general guidance on the LEAD. Any questions hit my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really want to do this, but Nightscream appears to have abused his administrator privileges once again. You have always been the voice of reason. Can you counsel him on this? We're trying to resolve an issue, but it doesn't help when someone gets heavyhanded with their blocking rights. Over to you. Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Asgardian (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
What is tad disappointing is how quickly other editors were ready to jump on the bandwagon and condemn over what is a misconception. Perhaps if someone asked a question? Asgardian (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:POST might find it interesting that WP:CHICAGO chooses Category:Top-importance Chicago articles by a consensus vote of its members.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Should the pages not be in the talk space? Technically, Watchmen/Revision is in the mainspace. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Does the first appearance really need to be mentioned in the biography? It's already mentioned in publication history, which seems more appropriate. It's also mention in the into. Does it need to be mentioned at 3rd time in the biography section? Just trying to trim the fat on a really long article. DigitalVampire82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC).
Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree very strongly that we need some kind of procedure like the one you proposed. It's a large part of the problems at CfD. If anything you understated the situation rather than exaggerating. There is no real CfD2 procedure and this works neither in theory nor in practice. DGG mentioned the need a while back in another deletion review and explained the situation afterward in a discussion with me on his talk page, but nobody's done anything. Hope you make some formal proposal.John Z (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that you had assessed all of the unassessed Comicsproj stub articles as stubs. Is there any way would could use a bot to troll through the unassessed comics articles and mark all redirect articles as class=redirect, importance=no? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You've been doing a fantastic job with the discussion report, and thanks for getting this week's issue out on time!
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
For outstanding contributions to The Wikipedia Signpost, especially D.R.A.M.A., I award Hiding The Signpost Barnstar. --ragesoss (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
Does the first appearance really need to be mentioned in the biography? It's already mentioned in publication history, which seems more appropriate. It's also mention in the into. Does it need to be mentioned at 3rd time in the biography section? Just trying to trim the fat on a really long article. DigitalVampire82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
Nice job on this subsection, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-14/Discussion report. Your representation of the events seems accurate and NPOV. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
re: Category:Articles lacking sources: I have no idea what was with my brain to miss the pink notice. Sorry for trouble. - Altenmann >t 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for troubling you, but is there a dedicated list of signpost authors and standard topics, or anyone can add a new section? Where can I add a suggestion? I have seen a section "interviews". I would like to suggest a section "memoirs", e.g., for people who were withh wikipedia, say, over 5 years. I was suggest5ing this because "history of wikipedia" is underdeveloped topic, mostly describing major happenings. But there is close to none individual histories. Something in between is sections dedicated to separate wikiprojects. Mukadderat (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've asked Colonies Chris. If he doesn't know, perhaps someone at the Bot Approvals Group might point in the right direction. I do know that AWB can be run semi-automatically, and you can check for # in titles before saving. Slower than you are hoping for, I suspect.
I run a Mac, so am out of field as far as AWB (very unfair). Tony (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
AWB has two ways to handle regexes. There's a regex tester (accessible from the Tools menu), and there's the Find and Replace facility. All you have to do for F&R is to enter the regex in the left column and the substitution in the second column, and tick the 'Regex?' box. Apoc2400's suggestion to tighten the regex to avoid sections etc. looks good to me; you could use the regex tester to try it out and confirm it doesn't have any unexpected side effects before running it for real. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
importScriptURI('http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Regex_menu_framework.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
function rmflinks() {regexTool('Change # to No.','hash2no()');}
function hash2no() {
regex(/ # ?(\d)/g,' No. $1');
setreason('Replaced "#" with "No. "');
doaction('diff');
}
/*************
*** Regex menu framework
*** by [[m:user:Pathoschild]] <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Regex_menu_framework>
*** - adds a sidebar menu of user-defined scripts.
*************/
importScriptURI('http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Regex_menu_framework.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
/* menu links */
// In the function below, add more lines like "regexTool('link text','function_name()')" to add
// links to the sidebar menu. The function name is the function defined in rfmscripts() below.
function rmflinks() {
regexTool('Custom regex','custom()'); // a default tool which performs regex input in a dynamic form
regexTool('Change # to number','hash2number()');
regexTool('Change # to issue','hash2issue()');
}
/* scripts */
// Below, define the functions linked to from rmflinks() above. These functions can use any JavaScript,
// but there is a set of simplified tools documented at
// http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Script:Regex_menu_framework .
function hash2number() {
regex(/ # ?(\d)/g,' number $1');
setreason('Replaced "#" with "number"');
doaction('diff');
}
function hash2issue() {
regex(/ # ?(\d)/g,' issue $1');
setreason('Replaced "#" with "issue"');
doaction('diff');
}
No, like a bad penny, as they say, I'm back and hopefully productive; certainly, John Romita Sr. needed expansion. Hope you, too, are well. I think I speak for many WPC veterans when I say the Project would be a much lesser place without you.
Let's see ... I guess what I meant back in January was to advocate for citing comic books themselves to verify particular points (which the Project generally does; if I'm remembering right, I think my post referred to a forum in which several of us were trying to codify existing practices?). For example, "The Silver Surfer is Norrin Radd of the planet Zenn-La. [footnote: Silver Surfer #1 (March 1968), p. 10]" or whatever page it was. That's really all. I hope this helps! With regards as always, -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You've been a part of it here, so I thought you might want to be aware of concerns I've expressed there re: Asgardian and the time and effort all of us are expending. In a nutshell: Oy. (Oh, and since you asked on that page about our membership ... I'm 50ish, I used to write for Marvel & Dark Horse for several years, and I've written about comics occasionally for mainstream magazines and newspapers. I hope my mentor isn't too much younger than I am! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I hereby invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance has been marked as part of the Manual of Style (permanent link here, section 22). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
...the Project Page. That took a lot of work and consensus-building. I and I'm sure our brethren thank you for taking on all that time and effort. Some tweaks and clarifications need massaging, but that's fairly minor. (I've got one question on its Talk page already.) But as for the vast bulk of the new page -- holy cow, what a job! -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a brief note to explain where I'm coming from, since there's inevitable ambiguity on Talk Pages (and not to argue my point of view here).
I basically tend towards the minimalist, pluralist or libertine view of style matters in Wikipedia, feeling that the MoS would be more keenly and easily observed, the more it sticks to clear problems of WP:Accessibility, readability, ambiguity, confusion, obscurity, mistake and unintended offense. So I'm not keen on a Manual(s) of Style that is/are rigid, intrusive, overbroad, or too far-reaching, and in general I think that uniformity for its own sake is an unattainable and not necessarily desirable ideal that's usually outweighed by a host of other considerations that I won't enumerate here. That certainly puts me in a minority at MoS talk pages, although I don't know where the general opinion of editors or prospective editors outside MoS Talk would fall if asked. But I also understand why collaborating editors in particular fields of study might feel the need to converge or regularize their treatment of certain names, titles or topics.
So when I mention the notion that the Manual of Style and major sub-pages like WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) constitute some kind of Absolute or Overriding prescriptive Authority (e.g. in # vs No.) to be enforced by 'bot sweeps, it's almost always from a negative point of view. And I certainly hope I wasn't implying that you were a 'bot. Since my (apparently-erroneous) impression was that—following entirely plausible reasoning from its own particular field—the Comic Book consensus was leaning towards "Vol., #", I was trying to point out (1) that there might be a conflict with the emerging MoS consensus without saying that either should prevail over the other, (2) the reasons for the different MoS consensus (non-Americans' unfamiliarity with that use of "#") and (3) my hopes that there wouldn't be edit conflicts and reversions caused by 'bot editing or wikilawyering.
As for the hierarchy of all the style guides, I just look (as you can see from my discussion at MoS Talk) at the gigantic edifice and wonder what can be done to prevent it metastasizing into an unmanageable Legal Code that collapses of its own weight upon everyone's head after most editors have just plain given up on giving it any heed. The Comic Book style guides weren't doing anything wrong, in my opinion, probably just trying to fit into a place where editors could find them more easily. But the whole Style Guideline structure needs to be examined and rethought, if not by the Whole Community, then at least by a very broad and diverse representation of it, so everyone at the MoS Talk seems to agree with your view (and mine) that any concrete proposals should go through the usual broad channels such as RfC's, the Village Pumps and the Centralized Discussion template.
Yours for the carefree pursuits of childhood,
—— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiding, You were the last person I wanted to offend by raising the matter of a proper system for admitting pages to MoS status. I haven't even looked at the comics one, and I'm sure it's fine, but I do think a formal process is required. Don't you? Tony (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. -MASEM (t) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
An addendum to the "interesting threads" bit above is where essentially the same thing broke out in a third place, leading to a Godwin. Interesting how worked up he gets over such a seemingly minor thing, no? A couple months ago he was passionately calling for a ban on a user who created hundreds of (legitimate, if not-notable) stubs using AWB. Wouldn't be hard at all to find people to complain about him, and it's hardly limited to just D&D anymore (I guess that's one of the "benefits" of GC#2 and our RFM with him; the rest of Wikipedia gets to enjoy his pleasant demeanor.) BOZ (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
To add [77] - another case of sticking to the guns despite overwhelming consensus the opposite way. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the links. I am always appreciative when someone comes behind me and does the minor touches. And yes, I know the procedure (heh). As to Dream Focus, I think he means well, but it was a substandard effort. I do try to slot something into every Edit Summary, but these days it seems as though there's not a whole lot of time to do so, as the fancruft efforts seem to appear daily (by the dozen), many of which are vandalism and one-offs by folks who never return. I'm guessing most of these editors are younger and mean well, but just don't understand Wikipedia procedures. Perhaps I'll just say to refer to WikiComics Guidelines in future. That said, if I didn't intervene, more than a few articles would have slipped several notches. Now, if we could only get Tenebrae to be a tad less protective of his old (and outdated) version of Awesome Android...
Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
My only slight concern would be the recentism skew we see from visitor numbers - there are going to be notable comics and characters from long ago that get very little love unless there has been an important announcement. That said we can pretty much figure that out pretty easily but it would be a good guide because I've basically been jotting down names when I've stumbled across them which is a shotgun method.
I don't think we ever go around to discussing P&A but yes there is no problem as long as we keep it breif and out-of-universe (so basically we need to set the example early and keep tweaking things to keep them on track). Minor characters are likely to have a fairly basic set of abilities so that should work in our favour too. (Emperor (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
Sure. I'll write something up when i have a bit of free time tomorrow. I was only heavily involved in it for a few months but i can definitely give some insight from that time. Wizardman 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot to add still for this issue -- I wish that you'd doublechecked before publishing :) We'll just finish it up on the double. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I was freaking out a little bit about getting it done when I left the above; don't apologize for publishing, it's great that you did. My schedule is a bit erratic, especially on Mondays, so there's no way that you could have known... and the Brion story just broke midday on Monday, so there's nothing I could do about it until Monday night, well past the deadline. Sorry to gripe on your talk page, and please don't feel bad! We do definitely need backup publishing help; I don't know how much time Ragesoss will have in the future (he has a new baby!) I happened to catch him last night & he fixed the headline. A checklist is not a bad idea... at least so we could say "it's 90%, let's go for it!" best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure dude, I'll do a bit of investigating as to what would be appropriate. Perhaps a more organised version of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Publishing with checkmarks, or another column on Regular responsibilities... we'll see. Let me know if you have any thoughts on how you'd like to see this implemented. Glad you like the new Newsroom structure, it should make it a lot simpler for new Signpost writers to comprehend how stuff happens. Cool! --PretzelsTalk! 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw you filed the AWB bug and had discussions regarding talk pages dropping off AWB queue. Did you hear anything about possible progress? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The signpost is ready for delivery. I think you have the ability to do that, right? Let me know if you can't. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought that it might be an issue (the image RfC), and now I feel embarrassed; please remove the thread thus far if you think people might frown on it. It's only six days old; I've just asked the co-organiser (MIckaul) how long it should go on for. Tony (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC) PS I guess I was still functioning in talk-page mode (less obvious); my worry is that this might start a trend of add-on notices at the bottom, which would be regrettable. Tony (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
for stepping in to help with the publication process, writing stories, helping to come up with constructive solutions and all-around helpfulness. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
First off, kudos on all your work at the Signpost, it really enriches the Wikipedia experience for myself and countless other editors I'm sure. I'm writing to let you know that I dropped a Discussion tip at the Tip Line, but then just wrote a Briefly point about it. I've wanted to help the Signpost for some time now, and this was my opportunity. I leave it up to your editorial judgement whether it should even stay, no hard feelings. - Draeco (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue was that the next issue's contents page didn't exist! I've created it and all links are now appearing as they should. --PretzelsTalk! 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to merge She-Ra and Princess Adora that was part of the discussion regarding He-man and Prince Adam or does a seperate discussion have to happen regarding She-Ra have to happen before a final decision can happen. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As I feel this was an unfair and hasty ban (one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed), I have posted an appeal for review here: [78] Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Now, I have a finished version of the last section I'm willing to post at some point, and DrBat can comment or not, although if he does I'm going to require more than a petulant "I don't like it" and a revert.
Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I did a bit of editing, hope you don't mind. Icewedge (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I recomend you strike out your last comment. In fact, delete the entire section, as both our contributions reflect badly upon us. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi old friend,
Sadly, I can't end my wiki-retirement; but, your note did inspire me to clean up my user pages so that they no longer appeared as if a hurricane had hit them! :) I'm still reading Wikipedia daily, so drop by anytime! Though I'm not of much wiki-use now, I still make a good paperweight, and I'm always a ready organ donor. I'm at your service for either purpose! Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I see the deadline is 03:00 UTC on Monday. For the Discussion Report, what would be a good working deadline for me to get you guys a list of the policy pages that are seeing the most action this month? Or should I just add that to the working page of the Discussion Report myself? Since August, I've been doing a monthly update in roughly the 4th week of the month and then again on the 1st, and I'd like to get notice out about which pages are seeing the most "action" and what the changes are in a Discussion Report before the end of each month. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice on nominating good articles. Richard75 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop by and say hi.
I haven't been around for several months, and I'm going to slooowly work through finding out what I missed.
Also, I know I'm cheating, but I would guess that most who I would say hi to have your talk page watchlisted : )
Anyway, just wanted to let you know I'm sorta back. (So better hide the breakables : ) - jc37 14:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I emailed you a while back, don't know if you ever got it or just "vanted to be alone". Gosh damn I have no clue what has happened since you've been gone. I just covered something about CFD for the signpost, though, so that might help. As to comics, we've finally got all articles we know about assessed which is a biggie. We're now looking at merging individual stubs into lists, since we have about 3000 of them, and not all of them are essential as standalone articles, based on, um, I found a tool somewhere, hang on, here. Oh, User:DrBat has been blocked indef for sock puppeting, although that user feels unfairly treated because Asgardian never was, see User talk:Carcharoth. And don't get me started on Asgardian. We're drafting an RFC, Boz has it somewhere. Damn, I don't know what else to say. I could probably add loads about the power structure on the wiki, which seems to have shifted somewhat, but that's boring. There's a whole load of people taking all teh chairs off tables on various policy pages, so have a rummage through any you used to like or created. Oh, and WP:FICT is as dull as dishwater, as ever. But yeah, any questions feel free to shout. Nice to see you. :) Hiding T 14:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on resurrecting or merging this, then. I know you're easing yourself in slowly, of course. :) Hiding T 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I've made an initial foray, see diff. Hiding T 12:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hiding,
may I ask what Andrea Santoro has to do with Comics? (as you added a related template) --Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
How does Comics-awb decide what to tag? File:Alyxvanceface.jpg is not a comic book image. It's not even in a comics-related category. --Geniac (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is the bot tagging comic book pictures as NA importance? It says in the definition of NA pictures is this is for spacers and lines, cosmetic things. Seems like it could be low or bottom, but NA Importance on a character picture would be impossible? Mathewignash (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Also wondering the same thing as it keeps inappropriately tagging manga/anime images as well, which are not under comics at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
And hi from me as well! Happy halloween! >Radiant< 14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In its current condition? Well, it's awfully small so I'd say no for now, but it may have potential. It was intially a joke, but if it was taken up sincerely by the scientific community then that makes it more or less legitimate. Maybe ask around at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs to see what they have done with similar articles? BOZ (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorising fiction. Go copy edit. Hiding T 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If I built a list of user pages in Category:Comics and all sub-cats, is that something you'd be interested in? Hiding T 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Reversions Well, I cannot revert all of these changes now, as it is 4:30 in the morning where I am and I was getting ready to go to bed soon. If you want me to revert them this evening, I can do that. If you are removing these speedy changes, I am confused as to why you did not list them below "Nominations with objections or that don't meet speedy criteria will be dropped from this list if not taken to a full CfD." or why you left a handful of the newest ones and deleted some in the middle. If you need to respond to me, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That may be a reasonable goal. Keep in mind that the intention of an RFC is to find something that the subject will willingly agree to, after having received said community input; if the subject refuses to make an arrangement or breaks it later, obviously that is bad on them. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Wha ... did you actually do all of these yourself? I apologise; I was being 99% flippant in my remarks that I made to you. I was going to remove the ones I had added, and I'm sorry you've spent the time to do it. I made my comments right before going off-line for the night, but was going to remove them first thing today. Due to our time differences, it appears that you got screwed, and I'm sorry for that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
An article which you edited, is now up for deletion. You are welcome to comment there. Ikip (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Want to help me work on this one? :) It's likely to pass GA after I work on the lead, and if there's anything you can add to the article in general that would be helpful. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hiding,
As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. None of the delivery stuff had started, so adding it in was fine. Thanks for writing that up! I was excited about getting some coverage of the experiment, but was just going to wait until next week before your article appeared. :) --ragesoss (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me how the signpost works out who to credit for their stories. I've been a reader for a while, but so far have only made one submission at the suggestion page. Roughly how much of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment would I have had to submit to merit including as one of the authors? ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Come on. Despite any differences we may have, I've never been sarcastic about your edits or taken a shot across your bow: [81] You should also know our mutual colleague BOZ has made a good case.
Regards 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for getting back to me. I took care of it. Hope things get less crazy for you. See you around Wikipedia. Homoaffectional (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Okey-doke; I'll give it a try. Not quite sure how to phrase it in a way that a bot will understand it, though — it's an automated process, so the bot must be responding to something in particular. Still — nothing ventured, nothing gained! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hiding, please see my recent restoration of the consensus-supported version of WP:N. Regarding the recent discussion at WT:N, I agree with Gavin that some sort of RfC is needed in order to establish a consensus regarding the information discussed. Would you be interested in setting it up? If so, how would you like it to be framed? Also crossposted at FT2's, Masem's and Gavin's talk pages. ThemFromSpace 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I created the page here modeled off the previous one. I wanted to have a page to link to so I can let people know in the current policy discussion (this week is WT:POLICY) where the discussion will be moving, but if you'd like for me to wait until you create the page in the future, please let me know. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hiding, thanks for publishing, can you add Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-16/Sister_projects to the /Issue listing plz? — Pretzels Hii! 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No should this have been. It might could be changed to an group article though.
Please reconsider I would like to be allowed to add categories to pages again. I have added thousands of categories to pages with literally 99% of them being unobjectionable. I've taken this time to do a little reading on categories and I have no intention on making any disruptive edits (e.g. I have added thousands of subcategories to the pages from Category:Discographies and I would like to continue maintaining these pages; as you can see on my talk, I got only positive feedback on these dozens of categories that I created and applied.) At your earliest convenience, please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
... is up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-23/Discussion report; sorry it's late (I try to stick to the 03:00 deadline). If you'd rather I create these on a different page, please let me know. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your removal of this criterion (second time) has been reverted by another editor before I had the chance to do it. All of Cfd is completely in favor of this criterion, and a few opinions on the Village Pump are not considered relevant. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18#Category:Mixed_martial_artists_from_Georgia. I do not mean to start a discussion with you about this, because if you want to discuss this the right place would be on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, I just wanted to inform you why you are being reverted. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I'm positively giddy to have a delivery system that doesn't require me to do anything (and that works!). :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
From my interactions with you, you seem to be a good editor with a strong interest in comic books. I thought you'd be interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spider-Man and helping to improve all of the related articles. --Spidey104contribs 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hiding, there's a little confusion about whether the time of closure was to be the start or the end of 24 November UTC. It doesn't seem to matter, people agree at the election talk page. Tony (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:
Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the election story -- I didn't realize Manning had left. Cheers, phoebe / (talk to me) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would question the value of lifting any sanctions now or in the future. Please take a good look at comments from other editors on this user's talk page (including the archives), as well as his block log. There seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here - I really don't see him as an intentionally disruptive user, but left to his own devices, the results can be very counterproductive. Radiopathy •talk• 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've noticed you being active on the deletion sorting front (well there have been quite a few recently and every time I go to see if anything needs adding you have already got there ;) ), I thought I should flag this (although you might have seen it already). A lot of those articles are poor (especially when you get a crossover with webcomics, which is always an area that suffers from notability issues) but the rate they are being nominated seems to be more than those who might be in a good position to suggest sources can cope with. Not sure if it changes anything but it might explain it. (Emperor (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
Why is your talkpage in Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed? And why is it "Non-talk pages"? Debresser (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Just in case I'm not around when the page protection expires/is removed, sharing my thoughts on this.
If th edit warring continues, I personally think blocks would be in order at that stage. They possibly were in order at this stage, but as you know, I'm on optimist, and think that discussion can potentialy bring about consensus. And protection can help nudge towards that consensus. But I don't like the idea of protecting the page for much longer than a couple weeks/month, unless we HAVE to.
I just thought I'd leave a note here, since your one of (if not "the") comics project admin(s). And because most of the others have your talk page watched. - jc37 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
GrooveDog FOREVER 21:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Many cordial salutations, Hiding. I hope that you have had a wonderful Thanksgiving and are enjoying your evening. I noticed that a tag has been added to [Gokinjo_Monogatari_Episode_Exhibition] declaring that the article has multiple issues. There is also a remark that there is a question of whether the article meets Wikipedia quality standards and probably needs revision to that effect. I would like for you to please elaborate on the matter and discuss on my talk page why you feel as you do so that this can be promptly resolved.
Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd flag this as you are one of my go-to-guys on Kirby ;) Happy shooting. (Emperor (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Fancy looking over this - Marveljew and Golem666 have very similar patterns of article starting - the former stopped, then a month later the latter started. Its not that the edits are disruptive but most of them are minor characters with no notability and there is no pint in churning them out if they are going to get deleted. (Emperor (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Hi, about to go to bed and won't wake till about midnight UTC. They've asked me to write the election report; I guess I could throw one together now, but more comfortable would be to do it in about 17 hours' time. What do you think? I note with relief that a lot of sections haven't even been started yet. Tony (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hiding. Though indef blocks of both Dsmith1usa and Lomcevak might well be the best result, Lomcevak is not a new account. It seems possible that they could be students at the same university, maybe even the same student. Some background that might help is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fetler/Archive. User:Sam Blacketer's name appears on one of their talk pages, and he might know something about this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds#Merge of Thomas K. Dye; your participation would be welcome. I accidentally missed alerting you before. Fences&Windows 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Will do the draft; would appreciate your scrutiny when it's done (Monday I hope), especially for POV, since I'm up to my ears in some of the politics surrounding the election. Tony (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is that if you are unsure of the block, you should discuss it first. Otherwise, it's a case of "shoot first, ask questions later". The exception would be if Wikipedia is currently under a coordinated massive attack that needs to be stopped immediately. Whether your block is questionable or not, I haven't looked at it so I am not opposed to the block. My interest in the matter is only because I read an article in the front page of the Wall Street Journal Europe about Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see! You routinely ask for review. Very honourable thing to do, more so than most people who block. I mistakenly thought that you blocked first and was having second thoughts. In such case, it may be better to discuss a proposed block first. Your honourable way of doing things, you deserve a barnstar. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The Excellence in Administrative Transparency Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Hiding for encouraging public scrutiny of his own administrative actions, thus establishing a framework for fair and open adminstration of Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
I'm pretty happy with it. User:Tony1/Sandbox Tony (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a few edits to your story in the Discussion Report as requested, but I worry I may have made it more controversial! You probably want to make sure you are happy with my changes before publication. — Pretzels Hii! 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|((#formatdate:((Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1))|d m y))]]'''
You've got mail. Vassyana (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Robin (Earth-Two)#reverted
- J Greb (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
According to this, Bill Randall reviewed Azumanga Daioh in the The Comic Journal #292. Can you find this review and see if it's worth mention in Azumanga Daioh#Reception section. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, but do we want the material that is going to be tagged under this work group to still be tagged under the Marvel WG?
- J Greb (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hiding, is this a good idea? User_talk:Ragesoss#Election_report_2 Tony (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.
Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.
Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Because you stated your intent to certify the Asgardian RFC/U, I am letting you know that it has begun. If you still wish to certify, you may do so now.
Also, you made statements on the RFC draft talk page pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. I have included a link to the draft talk page, so that interested parties may view the statements gathered there, if you do not wish to repost them.
Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a merge a while back but only two people (besides me) have posted. Having a discussion of 2 against 1 doesn't seem like enough people to establish consensus. If you could please post your opinion here I would appreciate it. I want enough opinions so that I can either merge the articles or end the discussion so that the merge tags are no longer at the top of the articles. Thank you. --Spidey104contribs 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)