Jump to content

User talk:Hiding/Archive 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Recall

How do we recall you, Hiding? Not that I think you're in need of it but there's no way to do it. I think there should be. I think categories of editors are by and large unhelpful, and probably a deadmin thing that allowed nominations and stuff would also be a bad idea, but I can think of quite a few admins who could do with being recalled because they tend to be a menace. Grace Note 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and if you reply, please not here. I don't have a long watchlist and I don't add others' talkpages to it. Grace Note 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to the compliment, although of course I don't agree with much of what you said. While it's true that it only takes two people to start an RfC on you, there have been RfCs on admins that have shown a great deal of hostility towards the admin but they have kept their badge. I'm not a big fan of RfCs in any case. They're very rarely productive. Bad admins don't read them and think "oh, I ought to change". They read them and think "that person is just an idiot and doesn't understand me". If they were capable of doing the right thing, they probably wouldn't be facing the RfC in the first place. Neither do I think you should be analogous to a Lord, although the analogy is pretty good. You should be more like, say, a DA, who faces election every now and then. In any case, I like the idea of randomly chosen rotating admins, to prevent the entrenchment of privilege, which has been on the whole detrimental. While it's a good thing that people who can be trusted retain the abilities that an admin has, it's not so good that those who use them unwisely, and some do, cannot be unseated. I like your idea of the embodiment of ideals but it's not tenable now, particularly with the vigorous testing that a candidate must undergo! Most older admins wouldn't even get the bit now. Can you correctly apply the speedy deletion criteria? I don't even know what they all are and I've been here for two or three years now. Still, I know an article that's garbage when I see it.

As for the system, I think it's broken in a multitude of ways, some important, some not so. Most of the not so important ways seem vital to some participants but aren't, and some important seem unimportant to some but are. Probably that would be the case with any large enterprise. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Grace Note 00:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Being an admin means getting into disputes and annoying people." Very true and I think sometimes "critics" forget that. It's also true for anyone who has just been around for a while, admin or no, so I'm going to have to decline your offer for now, although I appreciate your making it. 99% of the time I've been constructive here, but the 1% will ensure I don't get approved, and I think out of respect for you I should not let you be associated with that. Perhaps you'd be willing to nominate me in a couple of months and I'll spend that time letting any heat that my name generates cool off and perhaps that will be better. Grace Note 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Avengers Infobox.

We seem to be having a minor problem with the image for this. As a result of the last minor edit was over this, a note was added next to the image link to see the talk page. Right now we've got an annom (204.116.172.243) who has flipped it 5 times in 30 minutes and has stated bluntly he isn't interested in working with others. In addition, as part of his 3rd flip, he added an empty protection tag.

Is there anything we can do about this? — J Greb 04:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the page and semi-protected it. -- Samuel Wantman 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought the anon had moved on, I saw Rick Block got involved. My input was way off base so I left alone. Hiding Talk 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Child Wikipedians

Is there any particular reason you closed this after only two days? -Amarkov blahedits 23:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I felt a consensus had been established and the discussion was becoming circular. Both points had been raised, that of the out of process deletion and of the child protection concerns, and I felt the random sampling of users over the last two days established a clear consensus. I didn't see any directions about how long a deletion review should stay open, and I think the consensus is there. Hiding Talk 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • From what I saw there wasn't much of a consensus about anything. DRVs normally last 5-7 days, except where there is an overwhelming (almost) unanimous consensus, some other process takes priority, or the person who made the decision that is under review reverses their decision early (not normal without significant consensus). None of these were true here. Thryduulf 23:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't agree that there was anything but a consensus to endorse. Maybe I haven't kept up with DRV as well as I should, but it used to be they got closed when they got closed. I called it as I saw it. Hiding Talk 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you disregarded the process concerns, which is the whole point of a DRV? Discussions of content belong at XfD. Thryduulf 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I didn't disregard the process views, I recognised the consensus the discussion established. I'm not quite sure that process was entirely ignored, the category has been deleted twice before. It seemed to me there was a consensus established and that consensus was in favour of keeping it deleted. I think I stated in my close that I had regarded the process concerns. I simply weighed the consensus for keeping the category deleted higher than the concerns regarding processes. Hiding Talk 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There should be no weighing of concerns about content at DRV - it is all about process. If there was a consensus that the fears some had were worthy of deletion then there would not have been an out-of-process speedy, as it would have been done with consensus prior to then (and the proposed WP:CHILD policy would have gained consensus by now and would not have had to go to arbitration). Thryduulf 23:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No, content can be weighed in some cases. The community felt this was one such case. All people involved in the discussion were well versed in the ins and outs of process and deletion review. Everyone had a chance to consider the processes. And a consensus to keep the category deleted emerged. I don't see any merit in restoring the category and repeating all the arguments again at WP:CFD. It seemed clear that there was an even stronger consensus for seeing the thing deleted through process. To me it seemed expedient to cut to the chase. I think there was a consensus there to keep the category deleted. I used my judgement and declared it. I apologise if that seems like it was the wrong thing to do, but it seemed like the right thing to do to me. There was a consensus emergent, and I just felt that energy spent further debating the issue would be better placed elsewhere. I apologise that you feel I acted out of bounds. All that said, do you mind if I push off to bed now, it's getting late. I don't mean to appear rude, but I'm on UTC time. Hiding Talk 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

page name on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ashika. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. on their talk page.-->

EJBanks

Could you review the contribution histories of EJBanks, Creepy Crawler, Dr. McGrew and Batman Fan? I think you'll conclude that they are almost certainly the same person. They've been indef-blocked under the last three names for exactly the same kind of category creation vandalism that's happening again. CovenantD 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I saw The Adventures of Tintin is being featured tomorrow. Congrats and good luck with the vandals... Carcharoth 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Week

The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week#Wikipedia Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. And I note your objections. In the first year, the "Person of the Year" award could well be a bad idea. Badbilltucker 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

MoS (writing about fiction)

In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One of those days

There's plenty of bots around at WP:CFD and WP:BOT. If people find them useful in portalspace, moving them there would be a feasible solution. >Radiant< 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Per your request at Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service, I've e-mailed you the article. Happy editing! Gzkn 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn, guess I should have actually matched the text you porvided to the article I found ;). I tried to do a full-text search on some of the phrases the blog mentions, but got nothing...sorry! It's weird though, that there is an article by Januszczak on that exact date that doesn't match the blog... Gzkn 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your posts at ANI

I saw the thread on ANI. I don't know enough about the underlying situation to comment on the merits of the block and the unblock request, but your review rationale seemed thorough and well-reasoned to me.

This falls in the category of "easy for me to say," but please don't allow yourself to be stressed out by this or any other Wikipedia task. We all have to remember that sometimes, including myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the thoughts, but I give. This place is a game to too many people, and the fact that voicing that opinion is even considered to be in bad faith is an insane idiocy that should be remedied. I'm not interested in politics, I'm not interested in ethical dilemmas, I'm not interested in playing idiotic games. I came here to write an encyclopedia, and I am seriously starting to believe it is a lost cause. The trolls are winning, because even people who believe themselves to be acting in good faith are trolling. I mean, I worry when we are allowed to use alternative accounts. I don't hide here, I'll stand by every word and action and admit I'm wrong when I am. Maybe I need to get an alternative account to poke holes. Maybe process really is more important that the stupid encyclopedia. Hang it all to hell. Look, I appreciate it, but this is just something I have to work out myself. It was nice to actually meet people from Wikipedia a few days back, but it is so far removed from the actuality of Wikipedia it is untrue. Hiding Talk 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note of praise

This kind of stuff dosen't get sent around enough, so the bad seems to build up and overpower the good.

I have always had a great deal of respect for your decision making abilities. The case you tried to solve was a difficult and contentious one, and I fully support you walking away from it without reaching strong conclusion. You are a bigger man for doing so. I tried to figure out who was right, but also got fully frusterated by the intracasies of what must have been going on for years. Please don't think less of yourself or let the slings and arrows of whomever is shooting at you hit. You are a good and valuable contributor and problem solver. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Look, I really appreciate your words, but right this second, and believe me, this isn't easy to write, it isn't enough. I've been building all this up for ages, because we have this good faith idea and we have this idea of being civil, and it makes it so hard to vent. I really don't think the community values problem solvers anymore, because every single decision made on Wikipedia is now open to review on so many counts it has become an institutionalised bureaucracy. Consideration is seriously undervalued on Wikipedia and I don't really see a way of improving it. I know in my own head I haven't got the make up to go rouge, but I also know I can't be chipped at forever. I'm fed up to my high teeth of all the back biting. Hiding Talk 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The "community" is shit. The part of the community that you care about - the people who want to empower other people to write an encyclopedia, values problem solvers. We really do - I promise. Decisions on wikipedia are reviewed by people who believe it is an institutionalised bureaucracy, and then the decisions are actually made the way they should be - by people who get it. I *know* it dosen't feel that way for you *right now* - and it didn't feel that way for me not all that long ago, but, and not to put too agressive of a spin on it - we are/were wrong. Who is biting your back? Some putrid little troll? Some ultra-inclusionist Wikipedia Review kibitzer? An Encyclopedia Dramatica internet whore? I know it's impossible to ignore them (I've tried and failed), but it's not hard to pretend to ignore them, and it's really really satisfying. Create a legitmate sockpuppet and start fixing random articles, or just walk away. While we need you, we don't need you right now, and you don't need us. Do you play Chess, World of Warcraft or Battlefield 2142? I'll let you win or lose at any of them - your call. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Incidental note that probably has nothing to do with anything) - I encountered User:David D. during my first RfA attempt. He really impressed me in how he researched my contributions (including the wizard page), when it appeared that few others were. I don't know anything further about him except what checking I did of his contributions. But I thought I'd mention that I was and am rather impressed with him (similar though different of how I respect you and your contributions here). As I said above, it likely doesn't mean anything, but I thought I'd mention it nonetheless. - jc37 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding to this Note of Praise: You have helped me and so many others in so many ways -- teaching me the Wikibreak Enforcer, for instance, has had an enormous impact on managing a real-world Wikipedia addiction, with all the family and employment repercussions that entails. That's doing good on a level far beyond helping hotheads reach consensus and learn to get along better -- which ain't shabby in itself! Whichever way you go, Hiding, you have helped your fellow human beings in very concrete ways. --Tenebrae 23:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Read this

[1]. Posted in unlrelated incident. Worth reading. Wikipedia as university adminstration? I think so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GFDL and consensus

Hiding, I'm unaware of a split in the sense that you indicate, as the articles in question (specifically Robin (Earth-Two)) were created from a silver age perspective based on the long accepted model of Batman (Earth-Two) (which evaded criticism...for reasons that quite frankly escape me...as it also wasn't first proposed to the community input and yet has existed since Nov 7, 2007). As to consensus, I've been keeping track of the survey the Dick Grayson talk page relating to the existence of a Robin (Earth-Two) page...and it is quite evident there is a split as to keep/oppose merging or delete/support merging with five contributors for each side. This does not appear to be "consensus" of any type...and as to the survey in Wikiproject Comics any dispute is over certain pages being created while there is virtually nothing addressed as to the perceived double standard as to tacit permission of Batman (Earth-Two). If you wish to question my not approaching the community first, I would ask that you also approach User:Exvicious as well regarding his creation of Batman (Earth-Two) without the same approval. Thank you for your time. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiding, in fact there have been three secondary reference sources posted on Robin (Earth-Two) so I fail to see how this is overlooked. I'm uncertain as to the criterion of "revert" if the consensus isn't predominatly different. The two articles reference parallel characters with approximately the same number of publication references and the same number of "significant" events having occured for both characters. I can not agree when an apparent double-standard is being applied between myself and Exvicious. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My account

I just sent an email to you concerning my accounts. --Philosophus T 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi.

Received a request on my talk page from User:Thefro552 (who knows me from List of comic book superpowers) in regards to an IP who is daily vandalising Stone Cold Steve Austin. I think I'm with you in that I probably don't qualify as a Rouge admin, so I guess I'm hesitant to WP:RBI (especially since I didn't do the reverting : )

Also, I seem to recall reading that even if I were to decide to block the IP, there tend to be various complexities in blocking IP addresses, and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Looking for some "expert advice" : ) - jc37 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, you can consider semi-protection, which stops anonymous accounts editing articles, but I don't think the vandalism as is warrants it based on a cursory glance at the history. I don't tend to do WP:RBI, I tend to warn vandals, and I see there are a couple of ip's who have vandalised but haven't been warned. Might be worth rectifying that. There are issues with blocking ip's but it isn't as hard as it used to be, there are check boxes which make it easier. Basically, make sure your IP address isn't on the list of IP addresses we shouldn't block, listed on the block user page, then enter a reason and a time, I used to start at three hours, now I tend to block for 24, but I'm more confident in what I'm doing, you're probably better off starting with 3 hour blocks unless there's a prior block history, and then I tend to copy the last block.

Make sure only the Block anonymous users only box is checked, uncheck the other two. You don't want to Prevent account creation because you want to allow good contributors on a shared account a way in, and there are other benefits as well. You leave that unchecked unless you are positive the account is sock puppeteering and it's a short block. You never do it for lengthy blocks unless you can guarantee it's a static address. Leave Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from unchecked, this is to prevent logged in users logging out and editing anonymously or sock puppeting. It is all complicated, but you do eventually pick it up through experience. Your first couple of blocks you are best served posting for review at WP:AN or WP:ANI, just to get feedback, it's what I did.

In this case I guess the best advice is to have a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and the pages it advises you to go to. If the history of the article really does merit it, semi protection is probably the first best step, for a couple of days and see if the vandal gets bored. Hope some of that helps. Hiding Talk 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, that helped a lot. I think the best step right now is "wait and see". Who knows, perhaps the IP user may stop due to the warnings on their talk page. Also, I forgot to mention that I left a note at User talk:Thefro552. Please let me know if I passed on any inccorect information. Thank you very much. I appreciate the help/info/insight : ) - jc37 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of wizards in fantasy

Okay, there's obviously a dispute. I'm no mediator but it got brought to the admin's noticeboard so you got me. I've archived the previous stuff at Talk:List of wizards in fantasy, it was getting long and I could not make head nor tail of it. Now sometimes that is seen as a contentious move so let me reassure I'm not trying to close off debate, I'm just trying to wipe the slate clean and start again. Any issue you want to take from the archives and paste back on the talk page, please do so. What I would ask is that you don't right now. If you give me a week to try this attempt to resolve the dispute, then I'll move off if no headway is made. You can of course tell me to butt out now and I won't mind, I have better things to do now. What I would like, is for someone from either side help me out and explain what content has been moved where and where they think it should go. Keep it simple and don't point fingers, let's focus on the content. And pick one section to edit, A or B and don't edit the other. Just your own point of view, nothing responding to the other side at this point. Maybe if we work through this we can work out the best way to solve it. I have the impression it might all get solved by the requested move process, but I want to make sure the page history is all in one place so that the requested move can be set up properly. Then I suggest all sides allow a consensus to be built on the requested move and we work form there. I'm going to be taking the view that we request the move from where the content is now. That's not an endorsement, rather think of it as a wrong version issue. I hope this issue can get sorted out, because continuing disputes do no-one any favours. Thanks for your time. Hiding Talk 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. As I mentioned there, I'm working on it. Also, considering part of what may be at issue is copy/paste moves, I suppose I would have preferred archiving by moving the page history, rather than the copy/paste, but I leave that to your discretion. - jc37 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I withdraw from the debate. I'm not getting into disputes over how to archive a talk page. Hiding Talk 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't disputing, I was commenting, and leaving it to your choice. My apologies for the confusion. - jc37 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, it'll all turn out in the wash. Good luck with it all. Hiding Talk 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. And thank you for taking the time to be involved as much as you have been. Your efforts were/are appreciated by me, at least. - jc37 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistress?

Hope the stress wasn't caused by looking at that long talk page! :-) Seriously, thanks for the offer, even if it was retracted quickly (better to retract now than later), and I hope your stress levels go down soon. Carcharoth 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It had something to do with it. It took me quite a while to archive it, to be honest, my system isn't the fastest, and it's been a rough few days where every little thing has been commented on and I figured I just can't do it again, especially not when I've asked that people stick to the main issue. Still, it's done with now. I think I finally worked out I'm a volunteer, and it means I can withdraw any time I like. I think my stress levels will probably go down if I stop trying to be reasonable. Take it easy yourself, and thanks for being so understanding. Hiding Talk 20:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your subpage for discussing Esperanza

I don't think it is necessary, as there are discussion places on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza. Would you mind changing the template on Wikipedia:Esperanza and redirect users to the 2 discussions? We wouldn't want a 3rd discussion area.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • There is already a prominent link to the deletion review page in the deletion review section. To be honest the talk page makes it quite clear that any discussion of the essay and the talk page should occur at the village pump, I can't see where you raised your addition to the essay there as yet. If you want to engage in discussion over the text you wish to see added, then I'd rather you did that with the other participants in the edit war than engage with me over a suitable venue. If you can all agree a different venue I will be happy to update the link, but I'm not going to do so unilaterally. I hope that seems reasonable. Hiding Talk 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR violations

Hi Hiding. I reported both User:DCincarnate and User:Asgardian for 3RR violations during their edit war over Celestial (comics). Just thought you should know. --GentlemanGhost

  • Okay, I've blocked them both. That edit war raged way longer than it needed to.
  • And no one thought to look at the edit history and comments before acting. A compromise had just been reached and the article is now quite good. It took a little longer with DC as he didn't initially understand what playing with images does to the text.

(Asgardian)

    • Oh I looked, don't worry. But we don't experiment on the article page, that's what the talk page is for. I looked on the talk page but didn't see any discussion of the issue. When you are in dispute with another editor, talk first, try and settle it and then act on that settlement. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more details. Let's not think that disrupting an article is the right way to go forward. Hiding Talk 13:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I did use DC's Talk page, but no matter. Noted.

Asgardian 09:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank Miller

Hi Hiding,

I was just wondering about your rating of Frank Miller (comics). Surely an article needs some references before it can be considered A class?

Iron Ghost 18:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, probably. I just jumped into the middle of another user knocking them down, and based the reinstatement on the bio rating. Feel free to take it down again. I don't know who set this comics article assessment up, but I'd like to shoot them. :) Hiding Talk 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ditto.

Iron Ghost 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Rex

Hi,

I noticed that Rex is not being polite, and with respect to the template he created, {{Construction}}, he deleted the recent comments - plus mine. I would advise you'll keep an eye on him. Who knows what he might do next shortly?

Thanks for your attention. - Qasamaan 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think the deletion of the comics is too much to be worried about, I've seen him do it before. The previous time meant he was happy for the (it was an) image to be deleted, I think the same applies here based on the edit summary. Where is he not being polite? Hiding Talk 19:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe you do have a point. Having deleted the feedbacks, and read a bit of his conversations at his talkpage (although I might have misjudged him a bit), I thought something funny was going on. - Qasamaan 19:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

Hiding, I hope there was no violation of GFDL on this edit due to a cut-&-paste from another page. Marijuana and comics don't really mix. ;) (All in good humour nothing more. Peace) Netkinetic | T / C / @ 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The list

I'd be happy to look over the list. I'm not really interested in putting a lot of work into restore/redirect/protecting dozens of esp-related pages since frankly I fail to see the point in that. I'm sure you can find some espian admin to fix that? >Radiant< 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I too will be happy to look into it, and will do what I can to help Martinp23 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy) redirect

Sorry, I've had to withdraw from this, I apologise for messing you about. I simply don't feel like I have the time and energy to devote to mediation. As I indicated above, I'm not a mediator. I feel you may be best served requesting a move through requested move and seeking mediation, if you can get all parties to agree. Good luck, and once again I apologise. Hiding Talk 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I appreciate the time you put into it. I picked ANI because I wanted to have jc37's changes undone (or undeleted) and have him warned that he should follow the dispute resolution process, a process he took an end-run around and just plain old ignored. I wasn't looking for a mediator since it appears jc37 won't follow the process that includes that, but perhaps it is the best course of action and see if he cooperates with the mediator. Thanks Hiding! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Taylor Allderdice

Sorry I missed your comment on my talk page. Not sure if this even matters to you now: No, you are not worrying over nothing. The way with which the article has been edited has been extremely misguided, and I'm not really sure I understand the "enthusiasm" with which you and I have been opposed on this article. It's a bit feverish. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Histoire de M. Vieux Bois

Hi Hiding - I was wondering, as you are an administrator who frequents comics-related wiki entries, if you could keep an eye on the Histoire de M. Vieux Bois article. Grenye and I have been working hard to improve the quality of this article, but some of our work has been hampered by an anonymous user. This user seems to be a "collector" taking out a personal conflict with a dealer of Victorian-era comic dealer. Sometimes this is in the form of strange, errant parentheticals opposing calling this publication a comic. At other times it is rambling, personal attacks toward the dealer featuring links to a message board as "citations." Early on, the user engaged in deleting valid citations from the article. The user's edits can be seen in the current article's edit history as well as the history of the now-redirected The_Adventures_of_Obadiah_Oldbuck.

I think that Grenye and I have been careful that this article not proclaim that the book is absolutely the first comic book -- both in the first sentence, which is clear that it is a "publication" only "sometimes said" to be the first comic, and in the article, which is concerned with the history and context by which it is called this. At any rate, I suspect the user's axe to grind has less to do with the publication itself and more to do with the abrasive nature of someone on an Internet message board, which I have a funny feeling does not meet notability standards. ~CS 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent sources

What was the false assumption why you deleted it? Also, see [2]; this essay is referred to in many places and had substantial discussion on the talk page. Tag it with {{historical}} if you want, but deletion is not appropriate. The CSD has the "mistake" exception so that pages that have had others involved with them or have been referred to by others are not deleted; the "mistake" there is a prior mistake, such as a typo or a mis-understanding of the GFDL, though it is often related to deleting non-encyclopedic articles that the author realizes aren't appropriate (and that would have been deleted by other CSDs or other deletion processes anyway). Re-evaluating your assumptions six months later does not qualify. —Centrx→talk • 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason no one else made substantial edits to it is it was solid enough as it was; no one else thought there were false assumptions. —Centrx→talk • 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconding this, I happened to notice that the page got deleted. I hate to not truly be on wikibreak, but I can't really just ignore that. -Amarkov blahedits 14:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I posted the reasons on WP:ANI. I hope that helps clarify. I appreciate it's linked to everywhere, but I created it in Wikipedia space as a user essay and it should have been in user space. Hiding Talk 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Fuck it, it's not worth it, it's restored. Carry on with all the pointlessness. Hiding Talk 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Next time, though, chaps, maybe you might want to consider writing a replacement. Hiding Talk 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what prompted this or what the problem with it was? —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you

You're right in both your deletion and restoration. Is something wrong? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiding? Are you stressed out about something? Anything we can help with? Carcharoth 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Superman

Sorry, I haven't really noticed any plans of yours though to tear up the Fictional Biography. I felt that was a good summary. Ripping up the aspects of the character for a large sub-page isn't so good though. I'll check to see if there's been any information recycling on the History and Character pages. I do appreciate your excellent work by the way. Wiki-newbie 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you hive off the majority of the Biography to History of Superman? Wiki-newbie 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But it's the Popular culture stuff that needs sprucing, as well as helping improve that article. Are you fine? Wiki-newbie 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a fundemental difference between you and I then. Superman is a comic book character that has been depicted in various other media. You must agree at least the P.C. section needs a clean-up though. We need more emphasis on the comics then on the movies. Plus, we can we do for alternate versions? Wiki-newbie 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, Superman is part of the Comics Project, above Film. We've diverted from the main point now: originally it was lack of cites, now the article is in danger of becoming unbroad in coverage. Wiki-newbie 19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I really felt your trimmed versions of the Fictional Biography and Powers, which I had some work on, was the best version. History of Superman is a little of both: Comics guidelines say Publication and Fictional compliment one another, like a Production and Plot sections in a film article. Still, I think attention is needed to cutting down Publication and Pop Culture sections. This may mean I'd support Removal of the FA as the article is no longer truly stable. Wiki-newbie 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I want to say that the Fictional Biography should be avaliable to anyone who wants it. As for History of Superman, both really. Look at Storm (comics) or History of the X-Men comics, the only two comparable articles. Wiki-newbie 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply found the article as it was fine until you ripped out Biography, Powers and Personality. I guess I'm ok really with the Personality and Supporting characters being moved. I'll agree to copyedit and merge elements once you're done. Wiki-newbie 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We can remove the biography and powers from Superman character and cast and expand that particular section in the article for more on Kent, because you found some great stuff on Kent's role in the mythology. No point just bandying it as "this is what some scholars think". I think the issue is settled. I say no to Superman in comic books, that's what Superman is: a comic book character. The Middle-earth articles for example don't place extra emphasis on Peter Jackson for one thing. But enough of subpages, let's get the main thing into gear. Wiki-newbie 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"The insanity of this place kills me."

Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Alfred Tennyson

We'd be far poorer without you, lad. Take care, and if you need anything ask.
brenneman 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nice poem! Nice use of enjambment as well! (lines 4-5, I believe). Hope you come back refreshed soon Hiding. Apologies if I was a bit tenacious over some things. Carcharoth 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship & British comic s taskforce

Thanks for the suggestion but I had a look at the requirements for adminship when someone else was nominated a while back and I don't feel I qualify as I do little on the backend knd of thing and don't really have a pessing desire to get too involved beyond the things that touch on the entries I've been working on. Anyway if there is every any dirty work needed doing then I can always hassle people like you. ;) Nice of you to mention it though. :)

One the British comics taskforce: That is a good idea and well worth pursuing. I can't claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of the whole field but I have been reaidng British comics for a long time (I bought the first issue of 2000 AD when it came out - although largely for the space spinner) and I'd certainly be invovled with that as (as I've said many times before) non-US comics don't get as big a representation as they should just purely from a market penetration front and if we can spot obvious gaps in the coverage and try and get them covered then that is A Good Thing. Keep me updated on progress and sign me up. (Emperor 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a second set of eyes.

I need someone to to take a look at a back and forth I'm having with Netkinetic on the Comics Project talk page, at the bottom of the "List of related articles" section. I'm concerned I may have crossed some lines with it and I'm certain that if I respond to the last post I will be.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment

Regarding [3]. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks, I'd appreciate if someone kept an eye on the situation. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, nothing would make me happier than for it to go away. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, my last comment on ANI was an edit conflict, if the section had been closed when I edited, I certainly wouldn't have added anything else. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I haven't done one before but if you get it started I'd be happy to contribute to it. FYI, I'm about to submit a request for unprotection now. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture Warrior Hiding: An appreciation thread

Hiding, I want you to know that I sometimes read Wikipedia drama to my fiancée (she asks me to), and we cheer you on when we come across your entry into the gladiator arena with your calm words and your righteous glory. If things get to rough here and you ever need to, you can crawl inside my womb and be reborn. Or is that "woumb"? I'm not sure; I'm an ugly American who has only glimpsed the beauty of the Tardis. I am forever indebted to you for your guidance, camaraderie, and contributions to Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Earth-Two characters

Sorry, Hiding, I'm not sure I understand what should be done. Can we merge back those articles? This is it? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think so. But you mean these ones as well? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I would perhaps be inclined to follow J Greb's lead that 'The only splits that should be "left alone", barring a change in criteria for Project articles, are the Superman and Batman articles.' The rest are at a personal editors discretion. It will most likely cause the issue to flare up again, though. Hiding Talk 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Done : ) As soon as possible, please, take a look. And feel free to correct any mistake I might have made. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Um... as per the flare up... it just happened. The three that were mereged were just flipped back. — J Greb 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing other's survey responses

Hate to pester you with something that may be trivial, but what is the Wiki-etiquette re: editing someone else's statement of position in a merge/split survey? Reason I'm asking is that User:Btipling, signing as Bjorn Tipling, went through and "clarified" position statements from 4 other editors, myself included, on the "Batman (Earth-Two) to merge into Batman" survey. Thanks for listening... — J Greb 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
    • Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 13:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it does. — J Greb 14:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Hiding,

In what sense have I misinterpeted others comments? I'm basing it off the survey, and have been extremely careful to word both sides equally. Such terms as: those in *support* of the survey and those in *support* of a split, for instance. I'm unsure in what sense the RFC intro is slanted one way or another. As to setting up the page in question...in fact it was already "set up" prior to the RFC, after which it was redirected. I have added a few extra 3rd party verifiable sources, and I shall note this in the RFC accordingly. I am also extremely mystified as to your redirect of Huntress (Helena Wayne) which was created months ago prior to the current controversy. That you would make a judgement call on this particular article, when there was not a survey done for nor against it specifically, mystifies me. Articles started after Robin (Earth-Two)...I will make that consession they are fair game. This one however seems a bit arbitrary and I question the good faith for that redirect. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding alleged "misrepresentation", your point relating to jc37 is really semantics, nothing more. He voted for a split or a merge into a brand new article...the premise behind the RFC is the issue of a split from Robin/Dick Grayson, NOT from Batman and Robin of Earth-Two, or some such. As to characterizing yourself as in support of a merge, please note this comment:
"Then we can see that the people who support the split but didn't vote at the Robin article where this initially was help develop a consensus for a merge". I'm unsure of the grammatical nature upon which this sentence is based, however you commence with "WE" and then conclude your statement encouraging those supporting a split to developing a consensus to merge. Hope that helps. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Your view of mediation is to build consensus for a merge. That is your opinion, clearly stated. As to JC37, so noted, although again the argument is split FROM Robin/Dick Grayson. Still that said, I find it mystifying that you close down Huntress (Helena Wayne) without providing me opportunity to add some sources by way a warning, yet you proceed to allow scores of articles (for instance Bette Kane) untouched. I find this a bit...transparent...of perhaps intent over more than content dispute. I'm unsure I appreciate your targeting of articles created by myself over a disagreement between the two of us, and feel that if you had displayed even a fraction of tact as JC37 has, it would have led to more positive results. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 14:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Huntress redirect

What's up Hiding. Why did you redirect the character to Earth-Two instead of Huntress (comics). There's more detail there. --Exvicious // + @ 05:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of wizards in fantasy

  • Sorry, I've had to withdraw from this, I apologise for messing you about. I simply don't feel like I have the time and energy to devote to mediation. As I indicated above, I'm not a mediator. I feel you may be best served requesting a move through requested move and seeking mediation, if you can get all parties to agree. Good luck, and once again I apologise. I am especially sorry as you had already taken the time to respond to this. I'm feeling a fair bit of wikistress at the minute and I think taking this on would only add to it. hope you can understand, Hiding Talk 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for my late response to this message. I've been "away" from Wikipedia for a bit, but back now.
However, I think I've already responded to this (which maybe you've already archived?), but I'm not sure. As I hope I said: Thank you for your interest and attempt to help, it was by me, at least, appreciated : )
You may or may not be interested, but I've posted some information at that talk page. Read or ignore at your choosing, obviously.
In any case, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 13:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Netkinetic is posting all sorst of merge tags on only DC characters like Blue Beetle ted kord.Brian Boru is awesome 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Hiding, thanks for the info, jimfbleak 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RonBatfreak

hey Hiding, i was wondering if you can get warned/banned for bad grammar. User:RonBatfreak is making (in my opinion) horrendous edits, with poor puncuation and bad grammar. [4]

For example: "With Bart Allen has absorbed the entire Speed Force, Deathstroke supplying Inertia with an experimental substance Velocity 9 in order to be able to still retain his superhuman speed." from Titans East

Or: "On Teen Titan vol. 3 #43, she is under the captivity of the villainous Titans East with Robin and Raven after the attack from Inertia and Match." from Wonder Girl (Cassie Sandsmark)

Either he/she is very incompetent at basic english or it must be his second language or something (which is why he seems to ignore complaints in his talk. He also seems to incorrectly site specific issues a lot. Besides that, i guess his additions are accurate, reading them makes my head hurt. I've never heard any policy on getting banned for writing poorly, but someone needs to do something --EXV // + @ 10:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"one serious objector" to WP:ATT

Who would that be? :). Beware the argument from silence. Marskell 12:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Well, "Silence is boring" according to Dante (so says Wikiquote).
Now I'll quote myself from four months ago: "I worry a) that a radical policy innovation is going to be introduced through attrition (people failing to stay tuned simply because it's so big) and thus that b) many editors are simply going to have this presented to them as fait accompli." I'm more worried about that now. I have no idea where Jules is coming up with "a very large number of editors" editing there, or the implication that there was ever consensus for the pop culture exception. There was a consistent significant minority opposition to it; I'm only the "one serious objector" because others have dropped off. The archives speak for themselves. Marskell 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
But don't forget that the page received a grand total of ten edits in the four-and-a-half weeks prior to you placing the policy tag. Looked at in sum, there was steep drop-off in activity from the beginning of December onward, and I don't think people should be faulted if they tuned out an inactive page. And why should people hang around to repeatedly demonstrate that they disagree about something? That's the crux of why I want the rejected tag—we can start again, with hindsight on our side. Marskell 14:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In hindsight, we should've moved on the initial innovation that had broad support (merging V and OR, deprecating RS, and renaming to ATT) and left off the innovation that did not (the pop culture exception). The problem now is that the debate over the exception permeates everything that gets posted. (As you know, I think it's horrible.) Marskell 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
When I previously suggested cutting the thing and moving forward I was accused of trying a clever trick—a little like protecting a page at your preferred version. But the logic is sound: "there's disagreement, so the status quo (no exception) holds" is the Wiki-way, NOT "there's disagreement, so we'll just leave it in." Given that you, from the other side of the fence, have just removed it, perhaps it'll hold. I may have rankled a few people.
As for IAR, I wrote once that actually urging its use on the policy page is tautological: you don't need rules surrounding the policy which allows you to ignore the rules. And there's potential harm: IAR in the hands of newbies (and certain established users) can be dangerous.
I don't want to put words in her mouth, but Slim has suggested starting with a condensed version of NOR and V with no changes at all to policy. (I'm hoping for a talk post from her.) I believe this is what we should do; it's hard to argue that it's unfair or gaming the debate in one direction or another. Thus exceptions 1 and 2 could be replaced verbatim with the relevant passages from V and RS. I could live with this as our basic starting point. Marskell 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As an unstated notion IAR always applies, but I guess I'd rather not talk about it or encourage its use.
Would you mind if I replaced 1 and 2 with verbatim wording from RS and V? Marskell 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Already done, I see. This might just be the way to get the shit done. Marskell 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now then...

Let's breath for 24 or 48. Robert West, Francis, Slim, and others who've edited, may stop by. The logic of starting with existing wording is totally sound. The debates on actual policy innovation can take place when the page is live; people will be much more restrained in adding radical ideas at that point. Marskell 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon sources

Will reply on the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your advice on improving the Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline) article. I'll look up some sources when I get time. Richard75 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'll take a look... — J Greb 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksofen666

Hiding,

Is there anything that can be done with the above use? He seems hell bent on circumventing this CfD by just changing the other 2 cats. He also isn't responding to comments either on his user talk or in the edit summaries.

Addendum: the user just started moving the Marvel stuff... deffinetly circumventing the CfD.

(I've cross posted this with ChrisGriswold)

— J Greb 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd addendum: And he blanked my posts to his talk without response. — J Greb 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry.

I have a very bad temper, and usually I do try to control it (considering this incivility warning is the first one I've received in three years). ;) At first I did wonder how you came across my edits, but I see you have taken a look at Ksofen's, so I guess that would make sense. You do have good points, and almost 100% of the time I practice them. Thanks for dropping the note by. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your patient but firm hand in dealing with the seemingly never-ending disputes at Wikipedia:Esperanza, I award you this barnstar! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"place your chairs on the tables and last one out switch off the light"

I'm sure it was not your intention, but your recent comments at deletion review hurt my feelings a little bit. I'm used to suggestions from noobz (and Snowspinner) that I've got some sort of blood-lust when it comes to webcomics, but having you lump me in with "editors who do not like them" was a bit of a shock.

I won't re-run my thinking here, the DRV is the venue for that. But I'm dissapointed by the suggestion that I did anything here other than I do with any deletion close: Evaluated the arguments, looked over policy and guidelines, and tried to balance "consensus" as it is right at that second versus what's been demonstrated on the more geological time scale.

brenneman 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I apologise if you feel such comments were aimed at you rather than meant as rhetorical arguments against the dangers I believe such deletions pose. I was tremendously careful to couch my comments in the general rather than the specific. I don't doubt you evaluated the discussion and called it as you saw it. I just happen to disagree with that call. I think you placed more value on a guideline than on policy. I did try and email you about it, I don't know if you got that email? I'm sorry we disagree over this, but I hope we can simply agree to disagree. Hiding Talk 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
E-mail? Nope, but my e-mail server is often up to a day late. Anyway, I would hope that it goes without saying that I've got respect oozing from my orifices, so it wasn't about disagreement at all, passionate discourse is healthy after all. Perhaps I'm just getting thin-skinned, I've been copping it sweet the last few days. So, the apology is mine for going out of mmy way looking for offence.
While I'm here, is there to your mind any truth to the claims there's some sort of "web comics purge" on? I know I closed Able & Baker a few days ago, and the webcomics award itself, but I hadn't thought an unusual number of deletions or nominations were happening... Did I miss a cabal memo?
brenneman 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea if a purge is going on or not, but people seem to feel one is. There's discussion of it at the webcomics wikiproject and on jacksparrow's proposed notability guidance. I'm trying to keep my head down in article space these days, it's where I am happiest. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Hiding Talk 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OR on Webcomic

I've restored the tag -- the article is full of unsourced claims and original research. -- Dragonfiend 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Then I'd suggest you make use of the {{cite}} tag so they can be cleaned up. The original research tag is way too broad. Per the or template talk page, "what may be obvious to you is not obvious to the person trying to fix it. If you just tag the article without explaining exactly why it is rather difficult for outsiders to fix the problem. This template should be a temporary tool not something you just put on an article because you disagree with it." Also note that you are to provide details on the talk page. Simply reasserting what the template states isn't really providing details. I mean, let's be honest here, how many articles warrant such a tag? I think we're talking tens of thousands. Throw a dog a bone. Let us know what we're supposed to find cites for. Hiding Talk 00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The entire "Community" section, for example is completley unsourced. Don't feel like you've got to do it yourself -- I thnk I've added over half the references to that article, and am working on adding more. Since 99% of the article needs to be sourced, I thought one tag was better than cluttering the page up with cite tags after every other sentence. -- Dragonfiend 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And, if you're up for it, I'd suggest maybe you and I focus on improving/sourcing this article for the next week or so or however long it takes to kick it into shape? -- Dragonfiend 01:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I can fit it in I will try and keep an eye on it, sure. I wasn't suggesting I'd do it all, I was merely asking such things be tagged so other people can do it. Hiding Talk 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • RE: Time.comix. Of course I know who publishes it. Are you trying to insult my intelligence? --Dragonfiend 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I think you'll find that was a comment for a broader audience, and not directed solely at you. Hiding Talk 14:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
            • It sure seemed like it was in response to me. Also, I'm not disputing that Scott McCloud is a respected webcomics analyst (I've used him as a source in articles). However, T. Campbell, the WCCA committee member whom you seem to have cited as a "respected webcomics scholar" and that we should be looking at as an independent source on the WCCAs, is nowhere close to a "respected webcomics scholar." -- Dragonfiend 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
              • If you look at the format, it was bulleted to appear as a reply to Aaron rather than you. had I intended to direct it at you I would have formatted appropriately. I'm not sure what else to say really. And as I indicated elsewhere, I'm not really willing to dicker over whether Campbell is primary or secondary source on the WCCA, since it doesn't impact on his reliability, which is established in either instance. Like I say, at some point you and I will have to agree to disagree on Campbell's status. I've tried to do that on several occasions. You obviously have a different measure of respected and scholar to me, and at some point that's going to have to be that. I see no value in simply continuing the argument ad infinitum. I hope you can respect that. Hiding Talk 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconde set of eyes...

Doctor Fate was recently tagged for "tense in fiction" problems. I've run through the article and revamped it and could use a second set of eyes going over it. Would you mind...?

Thanks... — J Greb 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks. — J Greb 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

3 questions

Hi Hiding, I want to take care of some Marvel comics articles which need wikifying and clean-up, but I want to check out three questions before I do my first major edits (in order to prevent causing any trouble or annoying the admins ;)). Question No.1: I need a clarification about copyright. If I scan an image myself (for example a character or a comic book cover) and upload it, which copyright tag do I use and how do I state the source formally? Question No.2: Is it allowed to use images from the official Marvel.com website (especially comic book covers for adding them to incomplete lists) and how do I source these images? Question No. 3: Is there an infobox available for comic books? Thank you very much! Incredible Nightcrawler 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

I've been reading a lot of your comments in several subjects now, and I just have to say that regardless of whether I agree with you or not, you seem to be a phenomenally reasonable and level-tempered guy. Since it looks like you're also likely stressed out, I think you deserve to know that. Good show. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 12:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Robin (E-2)

Thanks for the heads up, though if I understand the 3RR right I'm only sitting on 1 reversion in the past 24 hours. I'd be more worried about if he were swinging through more than once or twice a night though. — J Greb 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's at it again... any chance it may be net passing back through? — J Greb 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Libel, the international version

So, in effect:

  • If you add it, watch your own back.
  • If you just see it, not to worry.

Thanks for the clarification. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gail Simone

We've got an annom vandalizing the page. It isn't the first time the annom account has done similar. Could you take a look and see if either the IP needs a temp blaock or the article needs semi-protection?

Thanks — J Greb 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The annoms involved are 204.69.40.13 and 69.92.184.84. I'm reverting it one last time (3rd, so I won't touch it again, sadly). — J Greb 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One Mike/Vince Deporter

Hi Mr.Block, wondering if this is something you'd look into or advise as I have neither the experience nor gravitas. It seems Single Purpose Account Vdeporter (talk · contribs) has made an autobio, and inserted self into a few lists. I'm not sure, but as far as I can tell, he is sufficiently notable[5] so a new COI situation for me. I've put up 2 tags, so is there more I ought to do, or step back and let the system deal? MURGH disc. 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me jumping in but I have followed this up on the entry's talk page. He does seem to be notable but the entry is copy violation (and not from Deporter's own site so it makes one wonder who the user is) and needs to be removed. I've added some details of their publication on the talk page. I'd recommend you take it out and restart as a stub using some of the info I dropped on the talk page. (Emperor 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
I've deleted the copyvio and moved the page to Vincent Deporter, where I've created a stub. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see how it's done. But I'm a little confused about how the creation of the Deporter article disappeared from history and user contribs of User:Vdeporter.. Also, since it has come to this point, should I remove the {uw-autobio} tag from his talkpage? MURGH disc. 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted edits disappear from contributions, um, that's just what happens. Ah, here: "Edits made to deleted pages are not kept in contributor's User Contributions pages." From Help:Page history. I think it's a product of the database calls. And yes, I guess the {{uw-autobio}} should be removed. Hiding Talk 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion/tagging

You have expressed an interest in the practice of putting up for deletion articles that needed to be tagged instead. You are therefore cordially invited to contribute to, review, clarify, and/or discuss a working draft on my userspace of a point that needs to be widely clarified on Wikipedia, User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion_is_not_a_substitute_for_tagging. Balancer 18:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Inventive reporter

About your "I mean, okay everyone says this, but which newspaper was it that had the journalist making things up?" on WT:WEB: There are quite a few, but it may very well have been Jack Kelley in the USA Today. At least that's the one I think I remember hearing of myself. Just posting it here since this trivia comment would look TOTALLY out of place in the current discussion :P --Sid 3050

Requesting help with resolving debate

Hey Hiding, we're having a bit of a revert debate going on at Template:Punkbox. The edit comments should be able to fill you in on what the hassle is, and there's discussion going on here. WesleyDodds 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners

Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PlayRadioPlay!

Hi. I'm disappointed to see that you've deleted PlayRadioPlay! before the AfD was up. I agree that it wasn't likely to make it, but the article author did indeed assert notability in the AfD discussion, and promised to find newspaper articles demonstrating notability. Was there something that made deleting this early necessary? Thanks, William Pietri 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Once it is clear that the article satisfies the conditions for speedy deletion, there's really not much point in doing anything but that. I think Hiding acted appropriately.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm saying it didn't meet the criteria for speedy, in that notability was both asserted and plausible. Second, when an AfD is open and people are actively working to improve the article, I think it's impolite to jerk the rug out from under them. In particular, I note that WP:SPEEDY says that "speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content. [...] These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under deletion policy is recommended." I'm all for reasonable applcation of WP:SNOW, but this was not one of those cases, which is why it was brought to AfD in the first place. William Pietri 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The article met the speedy criterion, no claim of notability was made in it. The debate was descending into a bit of a farce. It could haver been semi-protected, but myself and Friday both had the same idea to delete it. That is why I closed the debate but Friday deleted it, we obviously work from opposite ends. You yourself note it was unlikely to survive, so I fail to see the real problem with the deletion. It was not brought to afd because of the reasons you suggest, since the nominator noted it was a speedy candidate. The article has been deleted seven times for failing our speedy deletion criteria. A database search revealed no newspaper sources which substantiated any claims made. As to your point that in most cases reasonable editors agree, I would suggest the discussion at the admin's noticeboard and the six prior deletions suggest reasonable editor's agree. I do not feel a rug has been pulled from anyone, there is a freedom to write an article when the sources allow. There had been sufficient time to source that article. I'm sorry you feel that haste was applied, and I certainly accept your comments. I just feel that the four months from October 2006 have allowed sufficient time for suitable sources to be found. Wikipedia is not Myspace, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for up and coming bands with no media coverage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Hiding Talk 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The real problem for me personaly is that I was trying to help a good-faith author either make a good article or understand why the article didn't meet our criteria. The real problem in general is that by telling people we have a fair process and then violating it when we find them annoying, we give them cause to believe that we're not as fair as we claim. Here, the author did assert notability (as you can still see in the AfD) and they put those assertions in the article at some point. Ergo, it wasn't a speedy. I agree completely that Wikipedia is not MySpace, and speedied several articles this week myself. Was there some particular harm avoided by closing this early? So far, I'm seeing cost, but no benefit. Thanks, William Pietri 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, we seem to have a problem. To me it was a speedy deletion, there were no claims of notability in the article. We can talk about fair processes, but part of our fair processes are that we have speedy deletion criteria, which we both seem to agree this met. If you want to work this article up in your user space, feel free. I've got to take the broad picture here, that's what I'm looking at. You may see it as cost and no benefit, but there are arguments that the article itself was a cost and no benefit. Wikipedia is not free advertising. Wikipedia is not a free marketing tool. I could not find sources to substantiate any claim made at either the afd or the article itself. I researched this. I came to a conclusion that the encyclopedia was better served not having the article as things stand. If you want to work the article up in user space, I have no objection. If you can provide sources, I'll undelete now. But I'm not seeing my point of view being taken on board here. This band have had an article since October 2006. What, to you, is long enough to work an article up to meeting our speedy deletion criteria? What, to you, is the benefit to Wikipedia in our marketing bands and services and goods? What, to you, is the benefit to Wikipedia in having unverifiable information? Now you've already agreed the article was within the bounds of A7. It's a tough call, and maybe Wikipedia has egg on its face again, but let's be honest here. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people. The editor in question harbours serious misunderstandings of the resource Wikipedia is, arguing that we are here to cover "sudden cultural phenomenon". We are a tertiary source. We don't do original research. If there are sources I've missed, I'll gladly review the decision, but at the minute I'm weighing the scales and still coming down on the side of deletion. Sorry. Hiding Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not being clear. I argued for deletion and salting, so we agree on the eventual likely outcome. As somebody with a barnstar for my vigorous opposition to spam, I think it's clear we also agree that Wikipedia is not for marketing. Where we disagree is over the need to speedy-close the AFD. I'm saying there was no harm in letting Lisa Suarez have a few more days, the days specified in the deletion policy, to come up with the articles she claims exist. I agree the editor in question doesn't get Wikipedia, and I was trying to help her get it. By closing the AFD early, I feel you have needlessly harmed that process, possibly driving away somebody who could be a good contributor. I'm trying to get you to see that harm, so that in the future you let AfD run its course unless there is an overwhelming reason to break a policy that offers a fair hearing to well-meaning but inexperienced newbie editors. Is that clearer? Thanks, William Pietri 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you were not being clear. If you think I am someone who needs such a warning, then you can consider it given. But I think my contributions stand for themselves, and I know how much I deliberated over this matter, so I hope we can agree to disagree and consider this matter closed. I am well aware of what may be, and I am well aware that that cuts both ways. We don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and that afd was becoming disruptive. You are well within your rights to disagree with my judgement, but do not doubt that the points you raised were well balanced within my mind before I closed that debate. I have left a message for Lisa letting her know the matter can be reopened if sources are garnered. I feel I must take my leave now, for fear of causing or taking offence. Hiding Talk 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick move

Just a quick move need over a naming glitch. Details here. Cheers. (Emperor 14:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

File:Sergei Eisenstein with skull.jpg
In case you're feeling grim, remember...
I'm your biggest fan!

     I've heard you're a little bit bonked,
     And not in the fun porn-star way.
     When even your wiki-friends are irking you,
     It can really ruin your day.

     So consider your your joy-horn honked.
     (Err, but not in the porn-star way.)
     Think of the good work you've done,
     There's reason a-plenty to stay.

     brenneman 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Map of Mitcham Common

Thanks! Yes, I did missed the Three Kings out because I'm not sure if thats parts of the common or not. I think it comes under the Fair Green part of Mitcham. Anyway I can add it as a boundary marker. To be honest I rushed the map a bit (and I drew it in MS paint!) so its bound to be off a little. Also missed out bidders pond, and the bit by the Cannons to Willow Lane. I'll make amendments to it when I can, or if you like you can have a go. Think outside the box 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

It's now in your archives, but you gave me some concrete advice about how to block, and I wanted to thank you for it. See WP:AN#Hesitation for more information, if curious. - jc37 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi Hiding. I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. There appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. Organising by region isn't a problem. But organising by size has become difficult because User:Hmains uses the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions [6] to fit his own understanding of the term - [7]. However, community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [8]. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do you think? Is settlement the appropriate term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps? Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project members. And then on this page. I am a bit lost as the best place to discuss this issue. I don't want to delete or rename any category. And I don't want to get into a revert war. I'd like an open debate to reach sensible consensus. I'm now leaving this message on the pages of WikiProject Category members. Can you advise? SilkTork 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Settlements SilkTork 11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Team effort

In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kal-L

I don't see anything in the article that mentions the Earth-Two superhero Superman (Kal-L), nor do I see anything regarding a disambiguation of the other uses of "Kal-El". If you may, can you show me where it is listed in the article? Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your message

I am sorry if you found that unconstructive, I'm unsure as to how? I really do think the best thing to do would be to show that Comixpedia is reliable. If you can show that, then any criticism brought up is really beside the point-every publication gets criticism, but if we can show it's reliable and fact-checked, it's a valid source period. I certainly did not intend that to be an unconstructive or inflammatory suggestion, I'm sorry it came across that way. I was hoping that there could be a quick and definitive solution to that particular issue, I was trying to suggest how it could be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As to burden of proof, I think that depends on the source, how well-known it is, and if it's generally considered reliable in most areas. If one is trying to state that USA Today, the NYT, or Science is not a reliable source in a specific instance, the burden is on that editor, as those sources are almost always considered reliable. Conversely, should an editor attempt to assert that Joe's Random Blog is a reliable source in a given situation, the onus is on that editor to justify it, since this would normally be considered a totally unreliable source. Comixpedia...probably somewhere in the middle, it's to some degree accepted in its field, but apparently that's nowhere near universal, and as you stated its fact-checking processes are certainly in question. I'll let you and Dragonfiend hash that one out, apparently both of you know more on the subject then I do, but I was certainly trying to point out that a source is generally not reliable just because someone says so. (If a source is that unquestionably reliable, like the ones I mentioned above, you don't need to say so.) The old WP:V, and I'd imagine the new WP:ATT, stated unequivocally that the onus is on those who wish to add information to prove that it is reliably sourced. That includes conclusively demonstrating that the source itself is reliable, unless the source is one which already enjoys widespread and clear recognition as such. Comixpedia may be reliable, and if you can demonstrate so-great! You show that them and some others are reliable, this debate is over, and people can write about webcomics all they like from those reliable sources. I am not against webcomic articles. I am against in-universe fiction articles of any type, which do not bother to even go into the fictional work's real-world notability. Those types of articles have a place, and that place is specialty wikis, exactly like Comixpedia (or Startrekopedia, or Pokemonopedia, or whatever). But not here. The only ones that belong here are the ones that have notability in reality, and some type of impact on the real world (or at least a subset of it). If you can find reliable sources for that to be done from, more power to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I'm trying to avoid doing is making an uninformed comment. I see you've posted quite a bit of material supporting your position, so I'll have a look at that, and then I can make an informed one! I do get a bit disheartened, though, when I see "Take my word for it". As to WP:ATT, yes, it says obvious information shouldn't be questioned. However, I would suggest that an assertion that is immediately questioned by a couple people is not an obvious one. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean it'll take a bit of standing behind it. You've done that, and the material's there, so that's all there is to it! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

X3

Good idea, thanks. It is, at present, way too long; I'll see if I can snip something. >Radiant< 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Compressed the top part a lot without losing the meaning. The parts on sockpuppetry and usurpation still need work. Please advertise and copyed. >Radiant< 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EA

I have left a message on my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a try. Would you mind protecting it? I doubt Ed is going to let the current version as it stands go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugly things

If you could, I've got a back and forth with another editor that I'd like an admin to look at.

It's here Talk:Spectre (comics)#Article Title and I think it may be on the verge of getting out of hand.

Thanks...— J Greb 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

afd for merging

I fail to understand why deletion is a swift and decisive process, yet merging must be a slow and painful one. The article has one or two defenders who are anti-merge. If I merge, they'll just unmerge. I want to use AFD as a vehicle to make it decisive instead of dilatory, drawn-out, stressful, and discouraging, and to bring in a broader consensus than just me vs. one or two defenders who refuse to see the redundancy. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Anarky

That's impressive work there. Just a few more points. The images need fair use rationales, and they also need shrinking. Copyrighted images shouldn't be any bigger than they would appear in the article. Also, the trivia section needs to be worked into the article somewhere, trivia sections are frowned upon. I think if those happen, a peer review would be a bloody good idea, and then maybe if that goes well take it to featured articles. Hiding Talk 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your appreciation of my efforts, and for presenting me with my first wiki-award. I've made all of the corrections you noted. All images now have fair use rationals, and have been reduced in size. However, there were panels which held text I felt a reader could benefit from reading, so as to understand the context of the panel. These panels were not fully shrunk. I have also deleted the trivia section (I never knew how to integrate that last note, and to be honest, I never felt it should have been added. I just kept hoping I'd eventually get some citation to validate its inclusion.) Your suggestion that it might be FA worthy seems optimistic, but I only hope that now that these adjustments have been made, nothing stands in the way of the article at least receiving GA status.--Cast 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hiding,

Thank you for restoring the integrity of my talk page. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hyperion (Marvel Comics)‎

Hey,

Hate to pester you, but is there anyway to get this semi-protected?

We've got what looks like an annom editor with a roaming IP and WP:OWN issues.

The preface to the IP is 75.176. It looks like he's "camping" Hyperion (Marvel Comics)‎, Darkseid, Odin (comics), Wonder Man, and Thing (comics).

At the moment I'm about to hit the 3rd revert of his unexplained reversion of Hyperion. I've got a feeling I'm going to have to leave it in a bad state after this until Friday...

— J Greb 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

[9] I don't see what was wrong with the suggested compromise. Could you please explain to me why that edit was reverted?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines.

I noticed we tend to agree on some of the issues of Notability. I created a userbox for it to help group like minded wikipedians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_AntiNotable DanielZimmerman 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hiding, thanks for your (late :-) ) support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia template

You may have noticed some recent changes in the trivia/toomuchtrivia template. As a result of discussion at Template_talk:Toomuchtrivia, we're trying to bring the name of the tag, the wording, and the category into agreement with the current guidelines. Would you assist by moving <toomuchtrivia> to <trivia> and making <toomuchtrivia> the redirect? I would have taken it to Requested Page Moves for more discussion, but that seems to be for articles only. As you can see on the talk page, there is consensus already. Thanks! CovenantD 07:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, Woohookitty was working Templates for deletion and s/he was kind enough to handle it. CovenantD 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain America

Dude, if anybody knows how you feel abou hitting the wall, it's me. Only in my case the wall keeps hitting back...

Only if you happen to be up and around on Wiki anyway, you might want to look at semi-protecting Captain America. Several times already today, despite what it says on the talk page, anon IPs and others keep inserting as fact, "Captain America's dead!" This is, course, at least twice for Cap (remember Steranko's run?), and there's been Superman, and Green Lantern, and Reed Richards, and Nick Fury.... Since at least the Daily News is running with Marvel's press release on this publicity stunt, this might go on for days.

Don't know if you're around, so I'll slip this note over to Chris Griswald as well. Hope you're OK --Tenebrae 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I request a comic peer review for a webcomic?

I did a lot of editing for the article about the webcomic El Goonish Shive. Now I'd like to request a peer review, but there are no specific procedures for webcomics, but there are some for comics. Do I need to enter El Goonish Shive into the comics project, and does it qualify for it because there are printed editions? Ambi Valent 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would like an admin's opinion

Ran across something today that I'd like an admin's opinion on.

It's in two parts:

First is the edits by STEALTH RANGER to Captain. He's added a large section on "Captain" as used in fiction and prose, effectively doubling the article's size. It reads as OR to me but I would like a second opinion before either tagging it or out right removing it. I think he created it in order to support the second part.

This is List of Superhero Captains. The majority of it is by the same editor's hand. It smells of OR and blatant fan cruft. I'm not sure if tagging it will do any good or if it should go to AfD.

Thanks, — J Greb 19:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional:
The same user is adding a link to his "list" to various article as well as a non-existent category: List of Superhero Captains.
I'm still not sure how to move forward on this...
— J Greb 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Hi Hiding, ive looked through your contribs and i would like to award you some barnstars because i think you have earned them, Regards Anon

Your post

I saw your post about leaving or taking a break. I hope you won't stay away for long. I know exactly how you feel, believe me, but these things have happened before and people have moved forward, and they'll doubtless happen again. Nature of the beast, innit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy/Draft

I would like to move ahead with replacing the older version of the policy with the draft, and have posted notices to reflect that. Since you participated in writing it, please take a look at whether you think the current wording is acceptable. >Radiant< 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

fair use in portals

there is currently a proposed amendment to include fair use images in the portal space at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. I have decided to contact you because you expressed interest in this topic in the past. Please know that I am contacting all editors who partipated in discussions regarding this at WT:FUC. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow unblocked

Thanks for the heads up. I mean T-man no ill will, and hope he becomes a valued contributor to wikipedia. I am well, and hope you are too. Dyslexic agnostic 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpupped linking report

Firstly I wan't to claryfy that know that I need to both lay off permanently this issue and move on. Well, no, actually that's seconly, firstly I want to say hi and admit that I'm ashamed to bother you so soon, hahah. The thing is that after pointing out the redundant non-account-clearly-and-openly-linked IPs listed in my sockpuppet category page, I realised that User:200.112.96.113 is no less than an account that has nothing to do with me and that the checkUser result was "No proof available with CheckUser. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 12:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)". So, although I won't insist, but in contrast with the other IPs I'm only reasonably asking to consider taking off because of their silly redundancy, I demand User:200.112.96.113 to be taken of the list and to report the person who put it there to the Administrators Notice Board or a permanent record, there is no way he didn't know that IP didn't match me in the Checkuser and if so it's a evidence of negligence on his part. All just in order to fill the Category page with a lot of crap in order to make it seem like I have an army of socks (which might make raise more than one eyebrowns suspecting bad faith on the responsible of the exesive listing). Again, as I said, I'm plenty aware that minding such issues was a mistake and that I need to lay them off and move on (although with the placement of the sockpupped tag in both my pages how could I have avoided noticing and eventually minding the negligence and redundancies), so I'm trusting the issues to you. I won't insist and I'll trust that whatever you do is in my best interest. Thanks for your time. --T-man, the wise 08:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Taylor Allderdice High School mediation request

I've requested mediation at the Mediation Cabal on the Foreword issue on behalf of 0-0-0-Destruct-0. The idea of an informal mediation is to try to get consensus with the help of a volunteer. Hopefully, we get the controversy solved without having. Of course, all of us are expected to have the the will of actually solve the problem. --Neigel von Teighen 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


A request for informal mediation has been made regaring a dispute over Taylor Allderdice High School that you have been listed as an involved party in. You can find this request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School. Please be aware that informal mediation is just that, informal, and it is an attempt to help all parties involved in a dispute reach consensus on an issue prior to escalating to more formal mediation or arbitration measures. Please indicate on either the case page or the disputed article's talk page if you are willing to accept this offer and attempt to work toward a solution. Thanks! Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion/Protection of PlayRadioPlay!

A while back we both were involved in an AFD on PlayRadioPlay! (I believe you were the admin who closed the discussion). Anyways, I was recently contacted by one of the band's supporters, and appearantly the band in question recently released an EP which has made it to the sixth spot on billboard.com's Top Electronic Albums [10], and according to the label's website, the band is starting a national tour soon [11]. It still might be a little premature to recreate the page, but I think its something we should keep our eye on. Any thoughts on the matter?--Mbc362 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few more sources I have found. His album debuted 1 spot over "Dntel"'s new album. Certianly something notable for a seventeen year old who produced and recorded the whole album himself before he finished his junior year of highschool. Not many kids have a self produced Billboard top 10 debut before graduating...
A quick google search provided a few nice articles about the EP:
[12]
[13]
and here is the billboard chart that the EP debuted at number 6 on:
[14]

--~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've restored the article in light of a news source I found, which I have added to the article. I feel this allows the article to demonstrate enough notability to pass WP:CSD A7. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your EA proposal

Hello Hiding, thank you for your proposed text for the Esperanza essay. In a certain way, I envy you for not having participated over the past several weeks of sometimes heated dispute over the issue. Let's see if the other people who have shown interest in the mediation will agree with your proposal. Thanks again. --Kyoko 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sponsz.gif

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Sponsz.gif) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RE RfA

Thank you. Walton Need some help? 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abdullah.gif

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Abdullah.gif) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Allan.gif

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Allan.gif) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Benkalish.gif

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Benkalish.gif) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bianca and Nestor.jpg

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Bianca and Nestor.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bianca Castafiore.jpg

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Bianca Castafiore.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bobby smiles.gif

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Bobby smiles.gif) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bohlwinkel.jpg

Hello, Hiding. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Bohlwinkel.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Hiding/X1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comic book cat

Well I did as there were some that were stumping me and anyway "many hands make light work" ;) There are also some cats that look like they need merging (already listed) but it was much needed all worked out fine. Obvious there will need to be blitzes on comic book companies and then titles but it now makes a lot more sense and people should be able to find the right place to put things instead of just dumping them which is the important thing after all. (Emperor 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I quite like the organisations as a general catch-all as it can then take in non-profit organisations. I am unsure business is that direly needed as most of them are publishers and they are fine. I went ahead and made Category:Comics types as there is a books by type category so it went with the naming. What needs doing next? A blitz on publishing companies so they go to their relevant countries and then people can spot those that need Company titles cats. That'll make the eventual tidying of comic book titles easier. However, I'll flag that as next but leave it a bit for things to settle down. Oh one thing that was brought up was the recurive categorisation fo Category:Cartooning which is under Comics which is under Cartooning, etc. I also wonder about Caricature. I'd suggest Comics and Caricature should be under Cartooning as it is broader topic. The only other major things I've done recently are create: Category:Works based on comics and Category:Comics by source which have proved very useful for sorting out the spin-offs, tie-ins and merchandising. They are also tied in with the various other media and conform to the general naming conventions (so Category:Television programs based on comics is under "Television programs by source" and "Works based on comics"; Category:Comics based on television programs is under "Comics by source" and "Works based on television programs"). (Emperor 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Just saying hi

Glad to know you're still with us, and not just in spirit! We miss having you around. Hope your break from this addictive thing is doing you good. All the best to you! --Tenebrae 01:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I second the sentiments above : ) - jc37 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's very kind of you chaps. Hiding Talk 09:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Certainly! There aren't any "rules" per se, since it's an informal sort of mediation, so you are always free to do what you feel is best. I would prefer that questions relevant to the discussion be made on the discussion page, although if you have a question you'd prefer to be "on the side" you may ask on my talk page as well. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also in Article Comic Strip

Hi, I'm not sure if "See also" is deprecated. If so, this page needs updating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GTL#See_also A different section of the same page has info on a deprecated use of see also.

The reason the categories were put in "See also" is because they were illuminating to the topic and a reader seeking basic info would be unlikely to check the categories. Perhaps the links can be worked into the text of the article. --Kenmayer 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiding, Thanks for your comments. Your edit of List of comic strips looks like an excellent way to present relevant categories. Thanks! I may use it for the [Comic strip] article.--Kenmayer 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza essay

Hi Hiding, even though you may not have written the words of the essay, thanks for showing that in this case, less truly is more. Take care, --Kyoko 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate versions of Lex Luthor

I see you've moved Alternate versions of Lex Luthor to List of alternate versions of Lex Luthor. I don't really dispute your reasoning, but I just want to point out that there is a precedent in the original article name:

There's a lot more. I didn't even know they made a category. I remember their being an edit war over starting the articles with "list of" with the apparent consensus being "Alternate versions of..." Personally, I don't care either way, but I just wanted to point out those other articles. --EXV // + @ 00:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. i'll just link it up and we'll see what people want to do with it. --EXV // + @ 00:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Category: Superheroes by race

I'd appreciate your imput on this [16]. That and related categories are a bit of a mess and my thinking on it is:

  • Assigning race is tricky and controversial (especially in the case of black people where it can mean ethnicity or skin colour) and these would be best dealt with by a list where the editors can discuss inclusion.
  • The category can kept for the lists
  • Sub-categories should be split up and/or moved to the "superheroes by nationality" categories
  • These themselves need work probably to match the "comic characters by nationality" splitting things by continent.
  • They would then also need bringing under the relevant category so "Japanese superheroes" goes under "Japanese comic characters."

It should all work out fine but I wanted to get more input so it can be done right and any flaws in the above can get pointed out now not later ;) (Emperor 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Merges

And while I'm hassling you I might as well flag the two merges I proposed the other day [17] - the List of graphic novels adapted into television or film has come up before but List of films based on English-language comics has been reworked since and it is a much more solid case and a better fit (and I was in favour of it last time ;) ). (Emperor 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Sandman (Marvel Comics)

Hey, Hiding. There are a couple of vandals making specious edits to the Sandman article, User:69.120.172.36 and User:216.54.173.2, the former of which seems to be getting into an edit war with me, in which I've been reverting his edits. At first glance, it's possible he thought his edits valid, since it involves Sandman's real name and alias, but I tried to explain to him on his Talk Page that the information I added was due to Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man Annual #1, which firmly clarified the issue. I even cited it as a Reference, but he has not responded to me, and just reverts the section. As for User:216.54.173.2, this person has already been rebuked on his Talk Page by someone else for blanking out material in another article. So these two may require that you or someone keep an eye on them. Thanks. Nightscream 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, again, the way I added the info merely explains that he was born William Baker, and that he adopted the names "Flint" and "Marko" in high school and in prison, respectively, and after that, the remainder of the article refers to him as either Flint Marko or Sandman. I think that's just logical. If we accept that guy's changes to the biography section, it doesn't read right. As for the film, that is not the primary medium in which he appears or created. Typically, in such articles, media adaptations are given secondary prominence, and indeed, that is the case with this article. Nightscream 07:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In terms of prominence, it is true that in articles that discuss a character in general, and all media incarnations of that character (as opposed to say, articles focusing on just one adaptation, like say, Diseny's animated Tarzan movie, or the article on the film Batman Begins) primary space is given to the medium in which a character primarily appears, and media adaptations are generally touched upon further down in the article. This is true in the Sandman article. Differences between adaptations and the primary source material, from what I've observed, are generally mentioned in the section dealing with that adaptation. IMO, there is no reason to mention the movie in the section on the character's fictional biography in the comics, any more than it is necessary to mention, in the article on Batman, that the Joker killed Batman's parents in Tim Burton's 1989 film. Morever, we don't know if Flint Marko is the name he was "born" under in the movie. As in the comics, it's possible it's an alias. However, as far as a clarification as a lead in, that sounds fine to me; I've added it to the opening line of the Intro. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your help. Nightscream 18:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gracenotes

Hi, a somewhat important clarification I think I should make. You did not offer to nominate Gracenotes for adminship. You offered to nominate Grace Note for adminship. They are completely different people – indeed, very much so, as evidenced by the fact that Grace Note opposed this RfA. Your comment is very worrying as it suggests to me that you, too, would have supported Gracenotes thinking they were someone else – as at least one oppose voter and possibly some support voters have already done. That a user would ever be judged based on the history of a completely unrelated user is unacceptable to me. I suggest in future you actually take the time to look at the candidate's contributions and history before making any sort of comment at all on their suitability for adminship, voting or otherwise – Gurch 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've had some interactions with Grace_Note that didn't dazzle me with regards to assessing his/her potential as an admin that you might consider before nominating, namely this and this. Also, for an example of the user's calm and collected approach to the use of admin tools, you may wish to see edits like this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers, but I'm not really interested in getting in the middle of any disputes between you and Grace Note. Grace Note turned me down based on interaction like that and how it would play at an rfa. I tend to avoid rfa nowadays anyway. I should try and stick to that. Hiding Talk 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries. BTW, Grace Note and I aren't in a dispute, we had a conversation and it's over, I just wanted to follow up with you so you before you nominated so you'd have the full picture. His editing history has plenty of examples like that, the one I picked with me just happened to be the easiest to find. BTW, don't beat yourself up on the mixup, plenty of us made it (me too, I had to go check out the history before I realized it was a different person). Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I've personally encountered Grace Note and certainly don't have any comment to make on their conduct. I'm just very concerned when people confuse one user with another. Admittedly they do have similar names. I wouldn't want to be confused with User:Gurko, for example – Gurch 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taylor Allderdice High School.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

User:Asgardian

Well, I know how you feel (or at least felt) about dealing with dispute resolution, but since you were the one who proposed User:Asgardian be on probation, I'd like your input at least on his current actions. See User talk:J Greb#Moving forward on Whizzer and Absorbing Man and its subsections for at least an introduction. If you're not interested, or would rather not be, I fully understand. - jc37 11:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That whole issue has been going on far too long. I would suggest it goes to arbitration now. In fact, I would willingly support taking it there. Hiding Talk 11:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    You're probably right. I was intentionally stretching out the time in the hopes of fostering discussion, and transparency of enaction. But having a page protected as long even as it has been now bothers me quite a bit. I was intending on closing the rest of the discussions this weekend (I've been using Template:Poll top/bottom, it seemed effective enough), but if you want feel free to close the discussions. I'm going to revert the change that JG alerted me to, but then I have to head off to work. Thanks, by the way for your input : ) - jc37 21:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ok the RFC is closed. However, as I go through his contribution list (not just the edit summaries, but what actually is changed), he seems to remove comic-related information (such as video games) on a regular basis. And his edit summaries, while not "quite" uncivil, venture rather close at times. Perhaps the way to go would be to request more information, by starting an RfC at the WikiProject about him, asking editors to show evidence (not speculation, or unsupported statements) showing their support, or lack thereof, of the editor, with the evidence as the reasons why. What do you think? Is an RfC a move forward, or one backward? Should we go next to mediation, or to arbitration instead? - jc37 10:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Is the user disruptive? Does the user violate WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AGF and WP:OWN? Mediation will only work if all user's agree to abide by the outcome. Is that likely? Has that happened before, or has the user disregarded consensus? If so, arbitration. Hiding Talk 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Hence why, considering the past, you suggested arbitration above. Personally, I don't oppose this. So what's the next step? Should one of us (or both) do an RfAr? I think most that I've seen are started by an "aggrieved" party. (User:Tenebrae?) That said, I think you probably are more aware of Asgardian and his contributions (both good and not-so-good) than any of us. What do you think? - jc37 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    I've never really opened an arb-case either. But basically you just have to make the case that the user is disruptive, ignores consensus and is incivil. The problem is they can be very time consuming and very legalistic. I'm really only interested in acting as a sounding board here, I don't have the time or the energy to see it through. You'd probably be better off checking the temperatures of other admins, to be honest. Have a chat with A Man in Black, he's more experienced at all that sort of stuff, truth be told. He might have better input. Hiding Talk 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds like a plan. And thank you for being willing to at least be a "sounding board". While (in humility) you may disagree, I consider you one of the (many) people better-versed in Wikipedia "stuff" than myself, and appreciate your insight. - jc37 23:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

  • (cross-posting)

I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. Please add your comments there. References/diffs with explanations of why they are notable are most welcome. (I also cross-posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Comics content related RfC for User:Asgardian, et al.)

After doing a bit of reading, and the numerous talk page threads scattered throughout talk-verse, I thought a single page to discuss concerns might be a good idea. - jc37 14:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Wildstorm Universe

Just a quick note that there seems to be a consensus for my proposed solution Talk:Wildstorm#Merges but I thought I'd drop you a note as your input is appreciated (it is quite a big topic so needs to be done right) and I'll probably end up hassling you for the move. I have started preparing a quick wrapper for the WorldStorm entry to get it refocused. If you move it do you want to add it or leave it for me to do? (Emperor 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

That is pretty much it. Strikes me confusion could sneak in if it is done in bits by us both 9especially if you do the move, then I come along later and do a merge but someone has jumped in in the meantime). It'd be better to do in one go. So what I'll do is sandbox the "wrapper" - that way you bring it all together at the same time and get things right. It'll also mean other people can have a look at it and provide feedback. I'll sort that out now. (Emperor 18:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
Wrapper is here: User:Emperor/Sandbox/Wildstorm Universe. It just provides a quick introduction and placeholders for the bits and bobs (nothing fancy just enough to make the bits work as a proper entry). The core will still be the WorldStorm entry (as it is the easiest to move) and the other bits will slot in around it, mainly the clutter from the Wildstorm page. Any questions then fire away. I have said I'd leave it a day for other people to throw in final comments so no rush. (Emperor 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
Great thanks - I'll check through it all now. Adminship? I have a few things coming up (including possibly a book) that re going to suck up a lot of my time and so I'll probably be cuting down on my time here (I've probably started already - I haven't yet found the time to chase up those images tagged for deletion) but I will bear it in mind when/if things calm down. Thanks for the suggestion though - much appreciated. (Emperor 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Welcome back!

It is so good to see your name around the project again. I had to take about 2 1/2 weeks off myself. Welcome back!--Tenebrae 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like your thoughts on:

- jc37 23:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Comics

Just notify me when you feel like getting more input on the article. I'll make a thorough read-through and maybe do a little odd copyediting here and there.

Peter Isotalo 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Will do. I had a bash at the publication format section, trimmed that from being so much of a list, will attack the awards section next to stop that from being a mess. I think I'll branch that out into a separate article and summarise back. Then I'll have a go at the lead and we'll work up from there. I've got quite a few reference works now, although nowhere near what I'd like, but I'd appreciate your eye on how to knit it all together to a cohesive whole. I've saved a couple of articles during FARC, but I've never actually worked one all the way up to FA, and I always tend to get lost working out how to structure stuff. Appreciate this, thanks. Hiding Talk 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be very pleased about having an FA about such a broad topic. I think I can do a great deal when it comes to structuring the article as long as I don't have to provide the bulk of the content. If you're missing specific references, lemme know and I'll check if they can be found in the Swedish library system. If we get into more specific article-related discussions, though, we should switch to the article talkpage.
Peter Isotalo 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian discussion

Hi, Hiding. I was just wondering if you'd care to look in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian, and perhaps let the participants know what our options are. No one seems able to work with Asgardian, who is creating extreme frustration among a number of WPC editors. I know banning is a last resort, but after more than a year of his disrupting the WPC to make what other editors consider a habit of pointless points, many of us are at wits' end. Mayhap we need the calm hand or an insightful suggestion by the elder statesman of WPC? I mean this is all and complete sincerity. --Tenebrae 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Enormous thanks for shepherding this. As soon as the discussion ended, however, User:Asgardian made the same non-consensus revert to Whizzer here as he has before; I left a note about this on his talk page. As another editor, User:Jc37, wrote in an edit summary before all this, "several of the edits are contrary to the talk page consensus. Please take some time to re-read over the discussion you agreed to".
There's something odd going on with this kind of incorrigibility. What happens now? With grateful appreciation for the work you're putting in on this, --Tenebrae 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ping

I saw the thread at the community noticeboard, figured I'd chuck a suggestion in. See what you think, and comment at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Asgardian. Cheers. Hiding Talk 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I was planning to, but it seems that the discussion has been speedily closed? - jc37 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've raised the close with Tony at User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard.23User:Asgardian. He feels there haven't been enough blocks issued to the user to warrant a ban. You might want to chip in since I've stated that we don't tend to block, and it might be wise if you add your thinking as I don't feel comfortable presenting your motives. Also, hopefully, it'd maybe help get a solution of some sort. Hiding Talk 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I responded there. And please let me know if you disagree with what I said (or even if you have comments). - jc37 11:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

  • The other option I could see is a revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period then brief blocks could follow, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month, and after 10 blocks increase to six months. Any thoughts on that? Hiding Talk 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a great idea. And if even this doesn't work, we can always bring up the suggested topic (comics-related) ban again, or other options/remedies, for that matter. - jc37 11:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just blocked Asgardian for disruption. I'm not sure we can impose something like the above without it being agreed on the community sanctions board. This place is becoming a bureaucratic nightmare to be honest. I've posted my block for review at WP:AN. Incidentally, any reason why the rfc wasn't set up in the normal manner? It would have been useful to have had wider input into the user. Hiding Talk 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Editprotect Ultimate X-Men characters

I just had to revert a bunch of Ultimate X-Men characters that were recreated by User:Miharakamikazi. A list could be found on their contribution page. Can you edit protect those pages to prevent this nonsense from coming back? -- 69.177.242.99 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Reversion

It was mostly just typos, additions, and wording fixes — nothing that can really be struck out. I have a rather bad habit of trying to add comments or fix issues after posting for some reason. Originally, I wanted to add something about "fictional databases" of characters, terms etc. that don't provide any real-world context to WP:NOT. Users felt that such a treatment belongs at WP:FICT, not WP:NOT, so here I am. My goal is for all these endless lists of in-universe information to be merged and/or shipped to other Wikis, but not deleted (I don't like deletion of this sort of material), or for them to be turned into actual encyclopedia articles (like how List of Final Fantasy VIII characters was turned into Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). If you agree, what would you consider to be a good solution? — Deckiller 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't fully agree with A Man in Black WRT original research, since it's not a synthesis of facts or personal conclusions. I think such sources are fine for the in-universe material; articles just need to be balanced with real-world material. As far as the rewrite goes, I've been trying hard to advocate a transwiki and merge of information, with very little, if any, deletion. But I see what your saying about policy writing. There are too many opinions involved to come to a decent compromise, and there are too many ways to interpret things. I'm not quite sure how I'm going to handle the issue from here. — Deckiller 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the rewrite, though, I tried to establish that articles that don't meet such standards should be given time to develop and should only be deleted as a last resort (if a merge, transwiki, or other option is unavailable). The goal was to make the standard clear but also make deletionist look like the simple/easy way out. — Deckiller 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to get entrenched in a debate; I like to find middle ground wherever possible. And I think that I proposed this way too soon, because the working model, WikiProject Final Fantasy, is still working on several articles. I think I'll put it on hold, apply the concepts throughout Wikipedia, and return to the rewrite at a later date. — Deckiller 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think I don't have the energy to continue debating such a topic as this rewrite proposal, and my reasons for prematurely proposing this are, in hindsight, not strong. I was considering postponing the proposal as early as yesterday, and your points about the four content policies versus notability solidify the need. — Deckiller 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

2000 AD strip articles

Got any examples? I've kept an eye on them as they've been created and think most are fine - I've checked through and there are quite a few I'd like to see expanded (and some that need heavy reformatting) but few where few support a merge (a bit like merging a handful of relevant entries to "DC comics mini-series" - you could do it but it'd be messy). Also, as you know, I object to the term "strips"  ;) (Emperor 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Going through those examples Bix Barton was a long running series by a big name writer that needs expanding not merging. Vector 13 was important not only because it was a big series in itself but because they also expanded out and ran the comic so it got distinctly meta. Shakara I could buy but again it is in need of expanding. Although I voted to keep the only entry that would make sense being mernged is Malone (2000AD) to Sinister Dexter. My main issue with all of those examples is that they need expanding. As we know out of universe material can be tricky to fin, however, David Bishop's new book and other interviews in the Judge Dredd Megazine (and possibly Paul Gravett's book) can help flesh out background but, given the small number of people working in the area, it is a long game.
I don't really see how Characters of Final Fantasy VIII works as an example, as WP:FICT says "World of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Clone Wars (Star Wars) were evolved from lists of terms, events and concepts" and this isn't what these entries are. You'd be lumping a series of unconnected and unrelated entries together purely because they have been published in the same anthology (a bit like cobbling together "Some books published by Penguin" or, as I said, "Some mini-series from DC"). I am not aware of any similar merging or entry that would act as a precedent. My take on this is that each series is essentially one, or more, serialised works of fiction and so potentially can fulfill the criteria of WP:FICT. (Emperor 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
Thing is I don't agree there is a major theme (of the three examples you have a far-futre assassin, an X-Files-like collection of stories about anomalous phenomena and Bix Barton which rather evades description other bonkers ;) ). The Final Fantasy and Star Wars examples given work because they are all part of a larger body of work and can be given a good context. There are no such links between the stories and it would just result in a messy lumping together of material. I have tried a thematic grouping of 2000 AD characters and stories but it still felt kludgy and something with no overall "cement" to hold them together there would just be pressure to split them off again.
To answer your question: No not every Eagle, etc. series has an entry but then neither does every 2000 AD one, however, someone is clearly working hard to cover the important Eagle ones. Are they "major works"? Tricky one and fairly objective.
On TV episodes I am also a part of the CSI web project and have been working on the episodes and would argue that it is possible to produce solid entries on TV episodes but again it is a big job and a work in progress and a lot need expanding. I don't see this as an arguement for merging them all together. Of course, this may be a sign my thinking is no longer what Wikipedia wants (as the updates to the fiction notability guidelines suggest). (Emperor 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
But the category is there because of where they are published. There are a lot of Wildstorm titles for example. Some are in the same fictional universe, some aren't. Some of those could be merged together some couldn't. Thing is that isn't my only objection. I see no reason for this or precedent or anything much applicable at WP:FICT. This also isn't just about these specific entries - I am unsure where this would end. As I said above it may be my moderate splitting mentality that is the issue but most of these 2000 AD series are the equivalent of say a mini-series so with a precedent like that you'd have to also be looking at a whole slab of things. From my recent noodlings and wanderings other entries would fall into this: Cosmic Odyssey (comic book), Wild Girl (comics), etc. and then there are one-shots and most of the Elseworlds titles. Now this might be what we want to look at doing (Creating "Wildstorm mini-series", "DC mini-series", etc.) but that would be quite a serious shift in the way things are done in the comics project and would require broader discussion. I can see a case for some merges - Hellboy: Seed of Destruction and The Conqueror Worm (graphic novel) could all go into a "Hellbot mini-series" or "Hellboy story arcs" but then would it just need merging back into Hellboy?
I suspect something like the above might be required with the updates to WP:FICT - at the moment I don't feel it applies to those 2000 AD stories (or if it does it applies to an awful lot of other comics entries) but with that update I feel a large number of comic-related entries (most of the 2000 AD ones except Judge Dredd and perhaps Rogue Trooper, Slaine and a couple of others). Lumping them all together just doesn't seem like the right solution - I suspect the best one is transwiking 40% of the comics and characters here to some comics wiki with lists covering the gap (and prsumably linking into the other wiki). That will result in a lot of headaches (and soem toys thrown out of prams ;) ) and while I have expressed a dislike for this idea I think it will be the only solution that works. (Emperor 12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
Just for calrity's sake I'll break my objections down:
  • I don't see the need, we allow stubs so that articles can be started and expanded. I can see plenty of potential for these to be expanded. Obviously if we are changing our stance on stubs that is another thing. I can see this being an issue with the updates to WP:FICT but I am not convinced even then that just lumping them together is the right solution.
  • The Hellboy example wasn't me making a point. I saw them (as part of my work on Hellboy) and was genuinely concerned that we could end up with one for each mini-series/trade. This might not be a big deal though but it was on my mind when you messaged me. Thing is I consider the shorter 2000 AD series to be roughly the equivalent of a 3 or 4 issue mini-series. If the 2000 AD stories aren't considered eligible then I'd be worried a lot of mini-series wouldn't be either and personally I think they are (although as I say the Hellboy one's give me cause for concern - although I'd currently vote to keep and expand them if a merge came up, at least as things currently stand).
  • There is no precedent for this. If it was done it could then act as a precedent that would be applied to a lot of other entries (see previous point). I'd not want to make such a move lightly
  • I think lumping them together would be messy as there is no overall theme, I think some kind of transwiki would be a better solution 9and I'm no fan of that). Thinking about it a better solution could be merging some of the smaller entries by author as they often have their own themes and style (which I could probably find references for), e.g. Pat Mills tends to have big mystical warriors, John Wagner has hard-assed bastards, Dan Abnett tends, to go for wise cracking anti-heroes, etc. Other authors like John Smith, Gordon Rennie and Simon Spurrier would be trickier but it could be possible (God knows how you'd cope with co-authored stories). The main problem would be avoiding OR but the interviews and reviews at 2000 AD review along with David Bishop's book might provide enough material for this. I know it is often discussed and I bet there is enough material to back it up. That, of course, is if my other objections are overcome ;)
Of course, while I think you are explaining it fine I might be misunderstanding it ;) Equally, there are other people working on the 2000 AD entries so this is only my opinion but I feel you'd need not just a consensus with them but it has big implications for a lot of other entries so would need a broader discussion with the Comics Project and I am unsure there'd be much consensus there either. So just IMO ;) (Emperor 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
I agree. This is better discussed with all interested parties. Stepping on toes would really only be an issue if there were WP:OWN issues which there aren't in this area and my disagreeing with the approach amounts to very little if I'm in the minority. It may be someone comes up with something that will lead to a Damascene conversion but as far as it goes I stand by what I said above. (Emperor 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Opinion Requested

Hi, I'd like to hear you opinion on the following debate. (Merging Alternate Versions of Characters) -- 69.182.78.104 05:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Comics Proj Talk...

Am I right in thinking I may have just taken Troll bait? - J Greb 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't go that far, but I think prior discussions and consensus may be being obliquely referred to, and it might be a discussion you wouldn't possibly find productive were you to continue. Hiding Talk 10:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

It's always good to hear from you, even when I make a mistake. (How else does one learn?) Let me ask, since I guess I misread or misremembered, and I couldn't find it just now, but wasn't there a guideline at some point saying official go under References (as opposed to External links)?

The wiki thing at WP:EL seems vague now that I re-read it: Disallowed are "links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I'm pretty sure the policy is that, for instance, IMDb always goes under Ext links and not Refs. Does that ring a bell, or am I already in early stages of senility? :- )  Thanks for any help! And again, it's great to have you back. --Tenebrae 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't quite follow what your edit did. You renamed the external links section to references, but they aren't references, all the references are already placed in the references or notes sections, these are the external links. The external links section is where you add info for further reading, where as the references and notes sections are for sources which you are summarising in the article. I don't know what you mean by "official go under References". If you removed the wiki link per WP:EL, then fair play, I'll remove that too, but you confused the hell out of me by renaming the section, so I couldn't work out what you were up to at all. Regarding where IMDB goes, if it's used in an article as a reference, it goes in the reference section otherwise it goes in the external links. However, the IMDB should typically only be used as a source for cast listings or transmission or release dates, like it is in Superman. We shouldn't generally use other wikis as references, but there are notable exceptions where people do, I think Spoo is the most famous one. Anyway, I hope that helps, but like I say, I'm still not entirely sure what you were up to. Maybe Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Citing sources will help explain what the references section is. Anyway, take it easy. Sorry, I meant to post on your talk page about this but it was bedtime. Hiding Talk 09:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting N Visible Records

I just wanted to ask why you deleted the wikipedia page for N Visible Records. This is a real record label, and it is my business. We have several releases, and you can also find our music on itunes. We have sold over 20,000 CDs, and done concerts with our artists all over the country in New York, LA, Chicago, Georgia, Toronto, Montreal, and Manchester TN to name a few. If you do a google search you will find several links to N Visible Records related sites. Please consider reinstating this piece of information on Wikipedia. If it doesn't happen as a wikipedia entry now, it will happen when we sell more records. Thank you for your consideration.

Ben Garvey President N Visible Records nvisiblerecords@gmail.com www.nvisiblerecords.com 161.150.2.58 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey Ben. Sorry that page got deleted and it was so close to your heart. On Wikipedia we've got deletions policies known as speedy deletion, proposed deletion and articles for deletion. Your article was deleted through the proposed deletion method, which basically amounts to someone proposing an article for deletion. If, after five days, no-one has removed the deletion tag or otherwise contested the deletion on the talk page, we delete such articles. Now, looking at the article I've deleted it under the proposed deletion method, but I'd point out that it would also be valid for deletion under our speedy deletion criteria. These allow an article to be deleted immediately without discussion, and I think the article on your company fails under the 11th general criterion:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.

On Wikipedia, we have a few guidelines to guide us in writing articles, and I think two that probably serve here are Conflict of interestwhich discusses editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups; and notability guidance for organizations and companies which helps determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article.

Now if you want the article restored at this point, then let me know and I'll happily list it at deletion review, and it can be discussed, and if the community agrees, it can be restored. However, I think it might be more prudent to wait until you do sell more records, and thus gain more coverage in the media. Wikipedia has grown so large now, and being an encyclopedia rather than a general internet resource, that we've had to implement such guidances as I have explained, and mainly what we are trying to implement are our five core content policies, namely that information be verifiable, that information not be made up or form a novel presentation, that information be presented in a balanced manner, along with the policies that determine what we are not and what we do not want. I hope that helps. Good luck with the business. Hiding Talk 12:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup... again...

Pretty sure you're still watching the RfC for Asgardian, but just in case...

User:Lots42 posted to the RfC with a concern about Asgardian's conduct on Wonder Man. I've posted a reply to the RfC, but it looks like the exact same conduct that others have been complaining about.

- J Greb 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2000 AD aeries

I've kept thinking things over and come up with a more elegant solution (although I bear in mind this might have been what you were aiming at in the first place ;) ) which could be used for other publishers (and would technically probably be more in line with general guidelines than some current lists). It came up on a discussion on how to deal with some of the DC comics series [18] and the solution works for the 2000 AD titles. Rather than just a collection of merged entries that might not be enough to support their own entry (at the moment) have something like 2000 AD titles with sections for each title. Where the entry is solid you can use Template:Main to link to it and when it currently isn't they can be merged into the entry. It might be that this needs to be broken down into say ""2000 AD titles A-M" as there are a lot (see e.g. this [19]). It would a fix for those DC Thomson comics (although for a lot the titles sections can be kept in the main entry) and the same approach would help fix up entries that seem "messy" for example List of Wildstorm titles which could be broken down with a "Wildstorm Universe titles" entry, one on the signature series and expand the Homage Comics entry. It'd move to a more prose approach and avoid excessive listiness. Over listiness is a bit of a concern about some other publishers entries (like Dark Horse Comics and IDW Publishing which are nearly all list) and expanding the titles sections (and/or splitting them off) with a paragraph on each (and Main linking to the main entries where they exist) would make the entries much more solid. It'd also mean people can expand the section on a title, add sources and then see if it is worth splitting off which would be a much better approach than just throwing out the entry and seeing if it flies (which would then tend to lead to entries on comic titles/mini-series getting a good solid start and not falling afoul of the future WP:FICT guidelines and if it did there would be a quick and simple solution - expand it or merge it back into the list). So that'd be a solution I could get behind. It is straightforward and fairly neat and would address a series of concerns about a variety of comic entries as well as potentially leading to comic series/mini-series entries getting the best possible start. Thoughts? (Emperor 13:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

OK we seem to be on the same page now ;) My understanding was that thos titles which didn't measure up were going to be merged into a entry of 2000 AD titles that don't quite warrant their own entry entry (yet but they might do so in the future). If I'd thought this was part of a broader attempt to produce something on 2000 AD titles which could then have thin entries merged into it until they worked as standalones I'd have not raised as many objections. If it was a solution that could be used
I was basing it on the name of the category: Category:2000 AD titles. It is tricky making US and UK publication match as things are done differently. Basically the 2000 AD stories can be considered the equivalent mini-series just split up over a wider number of issues (they are often collected together in trade paperbacks too) so titles isn't unreasonable. Stories clashes too much with things that deal with story arcs or storylines (a series could have a number of story arcs to it over the years). Series doesn't cover the times when there might only be a couple of outtings really. Titles seems the closest approximation and as long as everyone understands what it means (as they seem to - no one has reported any confusion) it makes the most sense. It'd also work with something like "Wildstorm Universe titles" and keep things as consistent as possible across the project. Also if anyone comes up with a better suggestion they can throw it in and if it works it can be always be moved. I think if you asked over on the 2000 AD talk page most people would probably be fine with "titles" although I can already see someone suggesting "thrills" ;) (Emperor 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
And I agreed you could write a book on 2000 AD or produce articles on themes ("military sci-fi in 2000 AD" or "the occult in 2000 AD") or an authors works you'd struggle to produce one involving Bix Barton, Shakara and Vector 13. [20] Obviously, if I'd realised the plan was for a much broader entry it would have addressed a raft of my concerns. I'm afraid I don't really do subtle so if you are thinking of something you should say it outright as I am unlikely to pick up on any hints. ;)
I've added my thoughts about why I support "title" (and why "thrills" won't work ;) ) as I think it would be the best name to go with but I find myself struggling to care that much, the important thing is that everyone knows what it means and the scope of things, the name is secondary. (Emperor 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

help with Frameline Awards

Saw that you were interested in this topic. Was wondering about the Awards given out. Wanted to add them for each year but am becoming confused by different things said in different articles. Care to help? BiAndBi 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

re: All-Star Squadron rating

Just a point of interest... Net's change here did cite cultural impact, not time from first publishing. - J Greb 05:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Re: Blood Brothers...I understand you are trying to keep the peace, but above and beyond the article doesn't such a move have to be formally ratified? By this logic, all the comic articles should have one generic entry that combines PH and FCB. Big call...

Asgardian 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No, such a move does not have to be ratified because this isn't a bureaucracy. We call it as we see fit. In my opinion the divisive issue is the fictional bio and the publication sections being misunderstood. As the guidance offered on comics articles makes clear, the publication history section isn't supposed to be a list of dates, as you believe, but a discourse of the creation of the character and the input of writers and artists and the way the character has been used within comics. The fictional bio section is now at odds with the manual of style, which supercedes it and so should be deprecated. Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 09:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Netkinetic comment

Hiding will simply respond that it is an "article by article" decision, rather than apply equal consistency to all articles. At least that is the track record.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphic novel

Hi, Hiding. We can make it "working on" -- no biggie. It's just that since many graphic novels are the work of a separate writer and artist, and since I, just for one example, didn't know if Talbot was a writer or a writer-artist, I honestly didn't know what "working on" meant. "Working on" also suggested to me that it wasn't finished, whereas "wrote and drew" was clearer to me both in that sense and in what he actually did. As you said, though, it's not a factual or a WPC-style point, but a semantic one. You're the more experienced Wikipedian between the two of us, so I'll go with whichever you choose. Cheers! --Tenebrae 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood Brothers

I have enormous respect for everything you've brought and continue to bring to WikiProject Comics — you know that. That's why it was only with equally enormous trepidation I changed your Blood Brothers edit. I know I take a great risk in doing so, in terms of good will and credibility. I'm just concerned, and I believe it's a very legitimate concern, that if we unilaterally merge the PH anad FCB sections here, in contradiction to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars#Comic book characters, that this will throw WPC into disarray. There will no longer be a bright-line guideline, and every comic-book character article will be an arguable judgment call as to whether it "deserves" separate sections or a merged section.

Perhaps this ought to be discussed on the Exemplars talk page before such a sea change takes place. What do you think? Your friend, --Tenebrae 15:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have made you angry. I thought I spoke with you reasonably and respectfully.
I don't believe anyone, even an admin, can unilaterally declare the Exemplar outmoded and that we're not using it anymore. I think when you say you don't want to follow a dictat blindly and to give each article what it needs that "what it needs" is ipen to interpretation — what one person believes it needs, another might not. That's why guidelines are necessary.
I can't fight you on this. I can only say that mixing in-universe and out-of-universe material will be more confusing to a general reader. But I'll stay away; I won't bother you or bring it up again. I apologize for doing anything that would leave you "speechless"; that was never my intent, and like you, I only want the best for WPC. --Tenebrae 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional words; I feel a little bitter.
One quick question: It says on your user page "I've been an admin since November 2005," and you recently instituted a couple of blocks. If I'm misinterpreting again, I apologize, but you can see how I'd be confused. Thanks, --Tenebrae 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

I've replied on my talk page, just a heads up in case you're not watching it. SamBC 15:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your form letter threatening blocks

Do you think it is good judgment to threaten blocks with identical messages to five people? I find it highly offensive that you would accuse five people of "edit warring" for good-faith edits using form letters. I don't know about the other edits to the page, but mine were minor, and if you think they qualify as "edit warring" per WP:EW, then you consider "repeatedly" to mean "once." I think you owe all of us an apology. BenB4 15:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I understand that it's good to treat people equally, but being accused of edit warring by an admin threatening blocks for two good-faith edits to two words, only one of which was a revert, does not exactly inspire camaraderie. BenB4 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

threatening blocks

Threatening an established editor with with a block for implementing a consensus edit is deeply disturbing. Are you saying you get to decide what is consensus over respected established editors of a page? Please refrain from setting yourself up as judge jury and jail-keeper. WAS 4.250 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I replied on my talk page. If you check the edit history carefully, I was following the instructions of the unprotecting admin to the letter. - Crockspot 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Form-letter advisory

Form-letter advisory: Apparently, you've placed a "form-letter" type advisory on my discussion page advising against "edit warring". Although I appreciate your efforts to inform contributors of reasonable expectations regarding WP policy and modifications thereto, I can assure you I have taken quite consistent steps in both incrementally discussing, obtaining assent for, and carefully substantiating my (relatively minimal) direct actions regarding WP policy.

Moreover, the apparent action that triggered your form-letter advisory was this edit ([21]), which did not constitute a substantive change, but rather was a good-faith restoration of the prior terms of the policy (pending discussion), and was immediately substantiated with a specific and simple explanation on the relevant talk page.

I am well aware that there has been some recent contention around the page in question. A close examination will reveal that, quite opposite from "warring", my single edit was simply a narrowly-tailored and specific request for contributors to protect the internal consistency of the language in WP policy; regardless of however that language happens to evolve through the proper application of discussion, review and consensus.

Given that I have not even taken a "side" (other than the side of logical consistency) in any recent or pending dispute, your advisory seems non-relevant (even though well-intentioned). Consequently, unless you have any clarification you would like to present, I intend to remove your message from my discussion page entirely. Thank you, best regards to you, and best wishes in you ongoing participation with Wikipedia. dr.ef.tymac 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, form letters, etc

I just wanted to say that I'm sorry if I reacted harshly to your form letter. I think it wasn't the best way to deal with the situation, but I believe it was well-intentioned, and I want to thank you for trying to sort the situation out. SamBC 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

Thank you Hiding...I mean that...thank you. I will keep [22] link wherein you state: "We have a policy which states we can ignore rules to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and in my opinion my version better suits the official guidelines and policies". I'll remember it well the next time an overzealous editor attempts to steer a discussion towards his selective application of guidelines and policies without "discussing bright clear lines and what this or that article merits". It is interesting that a more established editor such as Tenebrae has entered your crosshairs, and even more interesting at the reaction from several above on something I noticed several months ago. Regards and take care.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me...I didn't misread your comment. You hold that WP:IAR should be applied when *you* perceive it is for the betterment of the encyclopedia and when it holds to principles according to *your* appraisal of guidelines. Even when the community holds to a different standard...or exemplar as the case may be. I'm unsure which "Earth two" article is "mine" for which you appreciate my contributions. In any event, if by Wikilawyering you are referring to "using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy; abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit"...well I suppose you know from what you speak. Premature removal of Esperanza articles, indiscriminately placed block notices of multiple talk pages, selective application of guidelines rather than "discussing bright clear lines". But then we each have areas to improve...myself included.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 02:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Devil's Rejects

Hi. I tried copyediting a section in The Devil's Rejects article, and every time I do so, it blanks everything below it, even though there was not size notice in the Edit page. Can you assist?

Also, the post above this one caught my attention, and I ended up doing some reading, and I have to say that I'm perplexed" Ignore all rules???? It's one thing to say that rules have to be applied with logic, common sense and situational individuality, but ignoring them? Isn't that a bit extreme, at least in the wording? I read the pages on that policy, and I just don't get it. How can common sense, improvement to an article, etc., trump any sort of application of the rules? Can you give an example of a legitimate edit that constituted an ignoring of all the rules??? Thanks. Nightscream 02:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy Ignore all rules is based on the fact that we want people to be able to edit without reading the rules at all (don't worry about the rules) and the fact that sometimes the rules are wrong or don't apply and the point is to make wikipedia a better free encyclopedia, not to blindly follow rules. WAS 4.250 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
An example of a legitimate edit that constituted an ignoring of all the rules is any good edit by a person who has never read any of the rules. Most first edits are like that. WAS 4.250 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting without discussion

Hiding, could I ask you please not to unprotect V again (or any other protected policy)? It's the second time you've done it without discussion, and on both occasions the result was that it needed to be protected again. Please allow the protecting admins to decide. A week isn't a long time to keep a core policy protected, because they need to be stable and shouldn't be edited much anyway. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your position is it means you're in effect saying you know better than the protecting admin, who is likely to know the background. You really shouldn't unprotect, unblock, or undelete without discussing it first with the original admin, unless it's entirely uncontentious or a clear error. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

Hi,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting meta:Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks, Andreww 14:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

Need your expert help!

Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for helping me out there. At least I have learnt something new with regards to this! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I need another help from you with regards to templates being consistent in nature. For more information, please view this page. Your help in this would be greatly appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dustland

Someone removed your PROD from Dustland with a note that they'd expand the entry but the PROD has expired. Not sure what you want to do about that but I thought I'd give you a heads up ;) (Emperor 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

Questions About Asgardian and Other Wiki Topics.

1) Where can I read up on doing references better? You know, the little HTML you click on and it takes you to the bottom of the article and it says 'Spiderman #442 July 9 Whatever'

2) What is the right amount of references in a comic book article?

3) Is it frowned upon to delete disruptive comments off your own topic page?

4) I did get all verklempt and I did do a full revert on Asgardian's changes on the Wrecking Crew article. Was the reverting in and of itself a bad thing? I know, I should have stepped away from the whole mess for a while. Acting while ticked off is never a good thing, even if the results are nuetral.

5) When I make a comment on a discussion page, do I need to make a little summary in the box that usually appears down below?

Anywho, thanks in advance, the Wiki explanation articles are quite overwhelming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lots42 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Hiding, I am very disappointed to see that this has happened. I have consulted once more with the aforementioned third party - a solicitor - and he has confirmed this now smacks of victimisation. The somewhat nebulous and easily misinterpreted Wikipedia policies do not help.

I have been placing comments for all edits in the Summary. They are all valid and correct. I think that this supposed indiscretion is in fact simply a difference of opinion as to what is major and minor. I regard image play and rearranging large tracts of text to be major, not the removal of incorrect information in a conversational and unsourced POV tone. If you consider "minor" to be simply grammar, numbers etc. then so be it. That's minor. However, this is hardly "earth shaking". A simple note on the Talk Page would have sufficed.

Further to this, it would appear that once again all the "good editing" that I have been doing has been conveniently ignored, which even extends to rewriting substandard articles lacking information or reeking of fan-fuelled POV (eg. Blacklash and Infinity Gauntlet).

Also, the claim that I am practicing WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT is untrue.

As to WP:OWN, see Hyperion and Black Bolt, where I not only accepted (as we all should) new information on articles I have written but also did a slight tidy up to improve it. But, there it stays. It is only when incorrect/POV/unsourced/ information appears that I will pull it, and as promised leave a note in the Summary. As for WP:DISRUPT, it would be a disruption if I left no comments...which I did. They are all accurate.

I also draw your attention to the comments which I took the time to post on user Lots42 page, as he asked me a direct question. I also addressed the rather immature comment made by user 204.153.84.10. User Lots42 then chose to delete my comment, claming it was the beginning of a flame war, which for my part was not. You can still see my response on the page, and an additional comment by user 204.153.84.10, who is clearly not objective and is hiding behind a number (who is this person?).

I was happy to discuss the matter with Lots42 further, but he has had a "knee-jerk" reaction as opposed to asking for more detail, which I would have given. On an aside, the comments stand - the edits were subjective POV, too conversational and lacked sources. This is not Wikipedia practice.

I also find J. Greb's comment to be in bad faith. The very title "Yup...again" says as much. I would like to kindly suggest that my fellow posters show both civility and good faith, which has not always been evident. This type of behaviour has been adminished by some of my peers, but unfortunately, seems to go unnoticed by moderators.

To conclude, I believe objectivity seems to have "left the building." There now appears to a small "lynch mob" that in Doczilla's own words is acting like a " probation officer waiting to bust him". I will make the odd mistake from time to time - as will everyone else - but this should not an opportunity for someone to instantly pounce. Look at the last dozen Edits I have made - have they improved Wikipedia or not?

I still like the idea of a "monitor" who can watch for any possible breaches. Both Doczilla and Netkinetic have shown objectivity and made valid comments in this capacity.

Asgardian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.161.236 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

Wikimedia UK

You wanted clarification if receipt of tax credits, a state benefit, confers eligibility for concessionary membership. As I've answered on my talk page (for now, I'll build that list of FAQ's soon), it does make the recipient eligible for the reduced rate. Andreww 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Midnighter

Hi, Hiding. Listen, I tried adding a source to the Midnighter article, one that I used twice in the article, and I tried to use the "ref name" tag in order to make it show up just once in the References section with the a-b-c thingee, but I must've done something wrong, because it shows up instead as the first and third source, and the third one is blank. I tried checking the notes that I keep on how to format these things, and I can't see where I went wrong. Can you tell me where I screwed up? Thanks. Nightscream 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL - I don't want to butt in but Hiding and Midnighter are on my watchlist and I'd had a few goes at fixing that reference when I saw your edit and I drew a complete blank. I'll have another go now and then, if that doesn't work, I'll have another stab tomorrow when I'm rested and can spot the thing I'm overlooking ;) Or Hiding can sort it out :) (Emperor 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
Got it - it was a typo [23]. Third time lucky ;) (Emperor 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:2000AD_First_Edition.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2000AD_First_Edition.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:2000AD259cover.png

I have tagged Image:2000AD259cover.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged them both as I didn't want to loose them but feel free to look over the FUR Hiding to make sure that matches you thinking/intent when you uploaded the images. I also note that the talk pages of the articles where these images are used weren't tagged which is a poor show. (Emperor 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC))


Non-free use disputed for Image:2000AD_First_Edition.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2000AD_First_Edition.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You rock

Thanks for all you do, particularly Wikipedia:Fun ~ Infrangible 01:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Howdy! It's been a while since I ran in to you, I hope things are going well for you Wiki-wise as well as otherwise. Anyway, after my unsuccessful nomination for adminship several weeks ago you had mentioned you might want to help with a nomination should I decide to try again. I've been considering the idea again recently and may throw my hat into the ring once more, and since you'd mentioned it I thought I ought to run the idea by you. Hopefully I haven't made any major mistakes since then and have improved as an editor.

Either way, I do hope all is well with you. Happy editing! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your dispute with Dsmith1usa

Hi there. I was just curious as to if anything ever happened with the dispute with User:Dsmith1usa in Politico-media complex? I had referred the WP:WQA on that dispute to another forum, since it didn't appear I could help any further. Never heard anything more about it, so I just wanted to find out how things went. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I've been on holiday for the last week or so, but I haven't noticed anything since User:Dsmith1usa reverted the page to an old version by me. Looking through the user's contributions, I guess the user may have quit. Thanks for your efforts here. I'm not really sure what the issue was, but I get the impression the user just had the wrong impression as to the nature of Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No, in honesty Block, that's a proxy dispute with KieferSkunk, in all his good intentions, on your behalf.
I have no dispute with friend KieferSkunk, although my replies to him, are necessarily going to be robust, since you took him, easily, as a proxy, that would 'speak to your "truth."'
I believe you were wrong. Anyway, where's our friend Blacketer these days - still making up fairy stories about what words mean - like 'candidate ;-), when you proxy'd for him ... when you intimated my 'trollishness' and wanting 'pointless' arguments?

Is the Truth 'wikibonk'ty you again yet?

Dsmith1usa 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Dsmith, but Hiding did not "take me as a proxy", as you say. I responded openly and willingly of my own accord to a Wikiquette Alert about your behavior, and I agreed from a policy standpoint that your behavior was disruptive. Hiding, being an admin, didn't have to go to these lengths to try to work out this dispute with you. I assure you, my involvement in this is completely voluntary, and from the point of view of an outside party not intimately familiar with the dispute.
I believe that your actions toward Block are now in the realm of personal harassment, and I'm starting to feel harassed as well. I'm one step away from opening an RFC/User Conduct against you myself - if Hiding felt it was necessary or appropriate to open one instead, I would certainly support it and would be willing to participate.
Dsmith, I advise you again to go read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CON before you get yourself in further trouble. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said to you, KieferSkunk, let the dogs lie sleeping:

I suggest to all of us, "It is in our best interests to move along ...,"

Prod a 'pit bull' then you're asking to be bitten. ('N then again 'Staffy's' can turn out to be the friendliest of dogs - the odd bone, here 'n there works wonders. Try it ... hand it over to empiricism ... 'n see what happens. Well ... 'Be Bold' as Wikipedia encourages us.)
You say:

... before you get yourself in further trouble.

Mmmnn ... I'm 'in trouble' am I? (And what 'kind' of 'trouble' would that be, KieferSkunk.) To intimate to somebody, in the UK, that they are 'in trouble,' outside of being taken into the justice system for a charged offense, is taken, itself, to be 'threatening behavior' - a chargable offense (criminal) ('N which may result in the taking into custody those that do the 'threaten(ing).'

[Statutes to be appended. But funny enough, can't get 'threatening' laws on-line. N'mind, I've got the law books anyway. You will have (criminal) statute.]

...But see how cooperative I am ... I'll overlook this particular 'threatening' behavior (which, btw, you've done it before). (I'll just roll-over on m'back 'n let you 'n Block, 'n Blacketer 'tickle' me, eh? NOT!)
'N you've still not told the 'Wiki community' what your coded message in ME was with:

Yes welle, the soone doo'n dette...

which when I re-checked my Chaucer, this morning, had 'dette,' in addition to being a root word of contemporary English 'debt' ... a 'smart' word, in Canterbury times for 'sexual intercourse.' Now, I don't see what I 'owe' you in a traditional sense, so by 'abduction,' it appears to me that you're making a reference to the act of 'copulation.' (I.e. - to me, 'F*ck Off.)
As I said before ... wisdom says, 'Let the dogs lie...' with a rider ... 'No fleas ... please;-)'
(Aside: to you and Block and Blacketer ... both the Engel and the PMC contributions continue to be under study. Nothing has finally gone away.)

Dsmith1usa 11:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not thrilled with the above comments. Perhaps I am misreading them, but they would seem to be along the lines of legal threats. In any case, I welcome clarification. - jc37 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody's 'thrilled' by it, but I don't take kindly, after all this episode, to being informed of my 'being in trouble' for what there are never ever answers to. Am I in Guantamo Bay?
I'll be looking-up criminal statute law, to remind myself, on the issues and consequences of 'threatening behavior' and suggesting to folks that they are 'in trouble' in the jurisdiction of the United KIngdom.
It will be plugged-in to what was written earlier, and duplicated here tomorrow.
Are you another Block/Blacketer/Block/KieferSkunk - Jc37?

Dsmith1usa 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While under other circumstances I might be flattered by being compared to Hiding (I'm not sure I've met the others you've mentioned), somehow I don't think that was your intention by the comment. In any case, I'm me, which, I think, is enough.
Anyway, I currently am not commenting on your apparent supercillious behaviour, but rather this (and other similar comments):
  • "I'll be looking-up criminal statute law, to remind myself, on the issues and consequences of 'threatening behavior' and suggesting to folks that they are 'in trouble' in the jurisdiction of the United KIngdom."
You may consider this a warning: If you continue to make such legal threats, you may be blocked by any administrator for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats.
Whatever content dispute you may be involved in is trivial by comparison. - jc37 08:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's worth adding that my "getting in trouble" comment was not in any way a legal threat - I have no power or desire to make a legal threat, especially an international one, nor is it allowed under Wikipedia's policies anyway. My comment was strictly about getting in trouble with respect to being able to edit on Wikipedia - it's a "policy threat", if you want to think of it that way, but it does not extend outside of Wikipedia. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe I made it perfectly clear what kind of 'trouble' you'd be in, Dsmith, but just in case you missed it, here it is again: I will either file a Request For Comment on User Conduct against you, or gladly participate in any such RFC/U filed against you by another editor. Since this started as a diatribe against Hiding, it's probably most appropriate that he be the one to file it. If that is deemed to be unhelpful, it can lead to stronger forms of mediation, including binding arbitration. Such a process could potentially lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, and furthermore it is quite a spectacle. I'm not sure if you really want that sort of attention directed at yourself.
I originally asked you to remove the personal attacks on Talk:Politico-media complex against Block, yet you persisted in making them. Then you started leaving very VERY wordy replies to myself, to Block, and now apparently to Jc37, and I agree with Jc37 that they look to be in the form of veiled legal threats, or at least in the form of personal menacing. That is why I said I felt harassed: Aside from having a difficult time understanding WHAT the heck you're saying, I'm also not thrilled with being accused of being a "proxy" for Block, and I'm not at all pleased to see my words twisted around.
I find it interesting that you would ask us all to "let sleeping dogs lie" after I did the exact same to you at the beginning of this mess and you refused. As I've said before, your actions have been uncivil and have violated WP:NPA, and I'm really quite annoyed that you seem bent on continuing to harass Block over what apparently started as a simple content dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding this little phrase: "Yes welle, the soone doo'n dette..." ... I believe YOU left that one, Dsmith. You can't leave cryptic comments in my Talk page and then accuse me of being cryptic. I don't resort to using Old English or foreign languages to make a point. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Real World: Hawaii

Hi, Hiding. Listen, for some reason, everything past the Cast table in The Real World: Hawaii article does not show up in the article, including the Ref section. I figured it might be a reference source tag accidentally left unbracketed, but I can't find one. Can you help? Thanks. Nightscream 05:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comics workgroups

Hiding could we get your input here? Cheers. (Emperor 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Statute (as promised)

My final, final (!) response to KeiferSkunk et. al.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmith1usa#Public_Order_Act_.281986.29

Dsmith1usa 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear violation of WP:LEGAL to me. Can we block this guy already? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Commented on his talk page. - jc37 12:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we block this guy already?

Please, please, ... start the machine. We all need, all of us, more 'spectacles.'

Do exhibit yourselves ...

Dsmith1usa 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI Notice

Old news

So you are in the loop since I directed User:Neil to you. Please see the block logs here and here, the history here, and the comparison here.

Now pardon me while I duck the expected flaming for bringing this to the attention of the Admins that have been involved in this debacle. - J Greb 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image review

Hi, I was told to perhaps give the idea a second chance.

What do you think? -- Cat chi? 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are on shaky grounds having a selected group of people running the project, that was one of the issues with Esperanza. I'd concur with Radiant that you utilise existing clean up methods to achieve your goal, maybe raise a discussion at Wikipedia:Images for cleanup? Hiding Talk 12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Shaky grounds? For what? I am uninvolved with Esperanza. See post on my userpage why existing tools are more bureaucratic than the proposal. -- Cat chi? 13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging w/o discussion

User:Freak104 keeps merging Hulk 2099 into Alternate versions of Hulk without any type of discussion. Can you please revert and lock the pages? -- 69.183.15.244 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I merged them without discussion because having Hulk 2099 as a separate article is an example of WP:Fancruft, and that can't be allowed. Furthermore, it goes against WikiProject Comic guidelines and is an example of WP:CONEXCEPT. Freak104 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Freak104 may also be using a wp:sockpuppet with User:66.189.137.113 based on boths obsession with my talk page and when User:66.189.137.113 blanked nearly the entire talk page here [24] so that it only supported Freak104's stance on the discussion. -- 69.183.15.244 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Freak104 keeps merging Doom 2099 with discussion to Alternate versions of Doctor Doom without any protection. In the case of Doom and Hulk, the editor in question is approaching the 3 revert rule. 66.109.248.114 22:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions needed...

I don't know if you've been following the ups and downs with Asgardian, but he's at it again over at Whizzer. I've popped a note on the talks of Neil, last admin to deal with Asgardian, and Jc73, who handled the Whizzer RfC, and a synopsis of what just happened is here: Talk:Whizzer#Today's edit.

I'm looking for suggestions as to who/where to take this now.

Thanks - J Greb 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard Kalvar

Thanks for the reminder. I usually prod articles while working in the Wikipedia:Dead-end pages project and I' m checking many pages very fast. I added a reason after your comment. Friendly, Magioladitis 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Twice now you've accused my nominations for deletion in bad faith, stating that they're simply due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please assume good faith and comment on content instead of editors' motives. Thanks. /Blaxthos 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Each nomination was made with a detailed rationale for deletion, including policies and guidelines for which violations are alleged. Labelling a nomination as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument implies (or, some would say, explicitly states) that the nominator has some bias against the subject of the article nominated and detracts from the actual issues listed in the AFD (a red herring of sorts). My advice of caution regarding assuming good faith is to encourage you to discuss the points made in the AFD nomination; simply labelling it as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument neither shows good faith nor addresses the actual issues at hand. Thanks for the reply. /Blaxthos 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Your very thorough response will require some time to address, but I shall do my best.
  1. I make no claim that you have come anywhere close to violating WP:NPA. This is, as I see it, a mature and benificial discussion. If I made you feel like I believed there was malice or hostility involved, I humbly apologize and delcare that the thought never crossed my mind.
  2. I am rather concerned that an administrator would state that "If you have no bias against the articles, I'm curious as to why you nominated them for deletion? I'd aver that a nomination quite obviously declares a bias." By your logic, you've equated every nomination with some sort of personal bias against the article itself. That is utterly ridiculous. In fact, I recently nominated an article for deletion that I like very much, but it does not meet with our rules here on Wikipedia. Which means...
  3. I nominate articles based on their compliance with our rules, not how I feel about a particular article. Saying that any (or all) nominations for deletion are based on how an author feels about the content is a breach of good faith. Consequently...
  4. Points regarding WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT have no place in deletion discussions; this applies to both questioning the nominator's motives and making arguments for keep or delete. Doing so immediately short-circuits the validity of specific objections and responses and instead implies that there is some sort of bias by the nominator or respondant.
  5. I believe that the language you quoted (regarding real-world content instead of in-universe information) is both appropriate and wise, and I'm glad it's included in the guideline. As such, I'm rather confused as to why you think it should be ignored in that particular case; the point, however, is moot and we need not dwell on it.
  6. I see no need, nor did I have any intention, to escallate this at all. I took little (if any) offense at your statements; I simply wanted to point out that any like/don't like points are only a distraction.
Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

your request for a Guardian article

Hi, I forgot if it was you I already informed by e-mail or someone else, but I've found the article you requested at the Newspaper and magazine request service (now Resource Exchange). If you could send me your e-mail address, then I'll mail you a scan of the article. I now this is a late reaction, but I'm trying to revive the project. Hope the article is still of use to you. Key to the city 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comics Project Improvement Drive

Just wondering if you had any input on this (discussion continues on the Notice Board talk page) - it could prove interesting and even out the quality of some of the important articles as well as bumping some others up a bit too. Obviously your input is always appreciated ;) (Emperor 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

No problem I thought I'd give you a nudge on this and see if you had anything you wanted to throw in. I'll have a look around for the collaboration page. (Emperor 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for that - I think what I'm aiming for is broader than that (addressing stubs as well as other articles).
I obviously won't try and talk you back into the Comics Project but your input has always been one of the most valuable and you are nearly always right too ;) (Emperor 19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

where I'm at (no turnatables or no microphone)

  • " I am perhaps at odds with where the project is right now."

Did you mean Wikipedia in general or the Comics WikiProject? If the latter, where have we gone wrong in your eyes? - jc37 20:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Nobody has gone wrong, since that would imply there is a right way. There are different ways of doing things, and my ways now appear out of step, is all I meant. Hiding Talk 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    I just got up, so maybe it will hit me later, but I totally am missing the references (even the header reference - turntable?) But anyway, I dunno. At least as far as the comics project goes, I strongly second Emperor's comments above. I sincerely hope that it's nothing that I've personally done. - jc37 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    The header was a riff on Beck's Where It's At. All I'm trying to say is that there isn't anything wrong with what people are doing, since there isn't a right way of doing anything on Wikipedia. It's not my way to criticise, so I won't. Take it easy and have a good 'un. Hiding Talk 20:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    PS, the use of turnatables was deliberate, to balance the first half with the second and fit the tune better, at least in my head. If this says nothing to you about your life, feel free to clang the tea tray. Hiding Talk 20:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    (grin) - I could be misreading it, but you seem in a good mood today : )
    As an aside, you've been sorely missed, at least by me.
    And not just your perspective on discussions (whether you agreed, opposed, or came up with another option - the latter being the most likely), it was nice having someone who was clearly interested, clearly was reading what was being said, rather than pushing an agenda, and therefore was someone attempting to discuss. (After our lengthy discuss of yore, my respect for you only increased, for all of the reasons above, and more; hence the barnstar.)
    You also were always already there whenever I would go check out a Wikipedia-space discussion. Which was cool, because in reading your comments (whether I agreed or not) was a great way to doublecheck if I was understanding the proposal/point of the discussion. You have a tendency to see through to the heart of a discussion, recognising tangents when they appear. I realise that it cannot be seen by our contribution history, but I read a lot more than I comment on. I've been a reader of Wikipedia (including project space) for a long time (long before I even finally decided to make an acocunt).
    This in addition to the fact that I'm still trying to sort out all the subpages of the WikiProject and the portal. You kept all that rather well up-to-date and organised. (I've got to bite the bullet sometime this week and update our collab of the month to Crisis on Infinite Earths.)
    And finally the trials and troubles of the project with Asgardian. I think events have pretty much convinced him that all he need to do is wait, and attempt to re-add whatever he intends, later, once the interest may have cooled down, in order to "get his way anyway". This makes blocking for an incident almost useless (as it would be "after-the-fact), except as a punitive block, which is really not what blocks are for (except in the case of arbcomm, I suppose). I personally think having to have 3-4 (or more) editors constantly watching his edit history, since he often is in the middle of a whirlwind, might be a decent definition of disruption, because they're having to watch him, rather than positively editing the encyclopedia on their own. There have been several times in the last few months in which I really would have liked to have your thoughts on some of the matters.
    So anyway, you've been missed.
    But that said, I envy you your lack of time here as well. As you've expressed in the past, it can be addictive, and I think you manage that fairly well : )
    (Personally, as one of the top ten sites on the internet, I just can't overlook the value of contributing to Wikipedia, due to the impact it can have on others (schoolchildren, for example). But then, I suppose everyone has their motivations : )
    I sincerely hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 20:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm in a better place than I could be, so I'm guessing I'm in a fairly good mood. I tend to keep my comments tight and not drift so much, it's the article space which is important. Also, if you don't say so much, people can't use it against you. And I got fed up being a referee, and all that goes with it. I haven't had it as bad as some admins, but I have reached my limit with the trolling. I'm also noticing that my peer group, or what I consider to be my peer group, is slowly drifting away. So maybe it just happens. But most of all, like I say, I think my view of what Wikipedia is no longer fits with where the project actually is. Hiding Talk 13:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. In the time I've been a reader/editor, it's like you've always been here : )
And I know the feeling. There are several people whom I respect and trust greatly (you, of course, are one), that I was planning to ask if they thought they might be interested in becoming bureaucrats. Every one of them went on extended wikibreaks/left wikipedia. Needless to say I was somewhat saddened/disappointed by that. But on the converse, each person knows when it's time for a break, so I don't begrudge anyone their personal time - after all, thereis life beyond Wikipedia (looks around for someone to say "blasphemy" : )
Anyway, two last things, and then I'll let you be : )
One is that the thought is still there, if you're interested in becoming a bureaucrat, I think you'd be awesome.
The second is that I forgot to mention above another thing I miss about you: You were always awesome at finding references, which gave us nice solid tools to beat away the WP:OR fanboys, or the over enthusiastic deletionists : )
Anyway, I do hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Earlier closing of trivia proposal apparently being questioned?

I thought that you might like to know that here the proposer of a new project which has the stated objective of actively restoring trivia sections to articles stated your closing of the poll was done, and I quote, by the ""closing" editor, who was not working on behalf of any known Wikipedia process, noted a 62% majority as reason to make the guideline." If you feel that you would have any reason to comment on this matter, I don't imagine anyone would have any objections to your clarifying your own actions or making any other statements you might deem reasonable. John Carter 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Workgroups

You previously mentioned you had done some work on creating taskforces/workgroups and it has come up in relation to the comic strip project (which has gone inactive and is up for a merge - if merged it'd be a good idea to make it a workgroup) [25]. I know you are currently working elsewhere and if you point me in the right direction I'll see what I can do about getting such things up and running. Thanks again for all your efforts. (Emperor 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes that structure seems to be exactly what we need. It strikes me we should broaden the remit of the merge and get everything fixed in one fell swoop. Which I'll do now.
I know what you mean about decisions not getting implemented and I know I have been as responsible as anyone else - time is variable and I'm easily distracted ;) This (and the improvement drive mentioned above - which goes live tonight) are partly my making up for this and want to try and get the momentum under these things to make sure they get done. I've also told myself to be a bit more focused too - not sure how that'll work out but one try.
On the issues you raise about the comics project I see what you mean (my comments in the previous section, and others, being an example of that) - you have clearly been a victim of your own success!! I think the big lesson is that we should all learn to be a bit more bold ;) (Emperor 18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
Let me know when the banner changes are done. I can create the various categories for them once I know what the exact terms used in the banner are. John Carter 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

regarding your edit warring warning.

I think your warning is misplaced. Here you can see that even Asgardian was accepting of the image I was restoring, one which earlier in that same section, had found consensus to be used. The other image lacked certain criteria for comic infobox images, per the Comics Wikiproject. My explanations continued throughout, I used the talk to explain, and again find consensus with one ofthe editors, and so on. This was not a case of edit warring, which usually is little more than shouting "I'm right" in summaries while ignoring the talk page. Instead, I used talk to work with others, and gave clear reasons why. Asgardian and I used the talk, and he agreed with me that the older image had consensus and would be acceptable to him, thus enlarging the consensus. Although Asgardian's hit multiple articles with this, I think you jumped the gun on accusing any of the three of us on that article. I think that had DCIncarnate returned to the page, he would've seen the talk page discussions as well, and likely been fine with it, or responded with reasons; I've seen his edits around before, he's not the sort to thoroughly blow off talk pages to get 'his version'. Further, adding such a warning a full 18 hours after the last relevant edit was made seems a rather long delay. ThuranX 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for your polite note and full retraction. You may have moved too quickly, but better to warn in haste and retract in leisure, as some true edit wars can go ballistic fast. Your fairness and willingness to admit mistakes continues to keep you a well respected admin all around, and I see i'm not the only warned/reetracted editor to note such. Finally, I offered the 18 hour period as a demonstration that it wasn't particularly an edit war, as those often move faster, with less patience for talk page replies and such, and meant it to be a comment on time-span comparisons. ... that explanation's clumsy as hell, sorry. I'm sure you understand what I mean though. Thanks again for reexamining the matter. ThuranX 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Ashley Miller

You deleted this article on 10th October on the grounds that Ashley Miller is no a renowned photographer. I don't recall putting this in the article. I certainly agree with you that she is not a renowned photographer. However as a renowned artist, the page i wrote should not have been deleted. Please restore and I shall ammend the entry. From user Nickamery 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Not a problem. You are one of the most knowledgeable, fair-minded and responsible editors and admins I've encountered in my two-plus years on Wikipedia. I know you were only doing your job without favoritism, and that it was boilerplate warning text. Your follow-up only reinforces my high opinion of you. And too little of you we've seen lately, BTW! With warm wishes as always, --Tenebrae 16:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Superman merger proposal

I moved the merger discussion section to the page I made the link to, so, in fact, the link on the Superman project talk page was accurate. Just letting you know. John Carter 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian again

I'm sorry to bother you with this. It's the same thing once more here at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics), where no matter how many other editors disagree with him, he just keeps coming back and reverting in order to, I believe, just wear us out.

He has promised in the past not to edit war, and he never lives up to his promise. I don't know what to do anymore. --Tenebrae 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I've revived the extant discussion, and added a note and link at the WPC Notice Board.
In the meantime, I've noticed that he's violated your Sanction Board stipulation at his community sanction
If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period then brief blocks could follow, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month, and after 10 blocks increase to six months.
He has made these blanket reverts, often with misleading edit summaries, per Revision history of Speed Demon (Marvel Comics):
  1. 17:59, 22 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
  2. 03:57, 18 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
  3. 00:47, 17 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
  4. 02:08, 16 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
--Tenebrae 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Okey-doke. Thanks for your continued patience in guiding me through this complicated process. I hate being a bother, and I do appreciate all your time and effort in trying to help.-- Tenebrae 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Collinson Grant

Hiding, feel free to forward this to DRV. If you can find sufficient non-trivial references (I mention that because many of the articles found by Google Archive seem to be passing mentions), then I'll !vote overturn as well. Cheers, Caknuck 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quick

Its what all the ladies say ;)

I just say it and thought it worth dropping a few into the main articles and let them trickle down. It might be worth tasking a bot to remove the Webcomics header and drop in the workgroup link if that is possible (ditto the Batman one I suppose). It'd be the most efficient way of doing it.

Anyway great work. The only thing I noticed was all entries were getting the information about B-class rating which might be a bit confusing. I'm sure you have it in hand and it was the only thing I spotted - everything else seems to be working smoothly. Well done. (Emperor 15:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

And if they say nasty things then they sure ain't no lady!!
Ah yes that makes sense (as most articles should be at least a B). The one that made me wonder was Talk:Alan Moore where it says it has been rated on the B-rating scale although it is a GA and the information might be a tad redundant, although that said in that case there are a few murmurings that it might be slipping from GA so reminder might be handy. (Emperor 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
It is a good point - highlighted by the fact that at one point Category:Comics was both a child and a parent to Category:Comics at one point. I notice Cartoons is under a general visual arts media project and I suppose it depends on how far our remit extends. The cartoon controversy makes sense as it also included comics and I'd suggest the main Cartoons article would too as it covers comics. I suppose, we err on the side of caution. (Emperor 15:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
The Far Side as a comic? Coo. I can see why you'd urge caution ;) (Emperor 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
Nope I don't think you misread - I'd recommend tagging Cartoon and while I wouldn't necessarily roll it out across all cartoons I don't think it is a bad idea if the editors of the page agreed. I'd be wary of a blanket roll out in case it got anyone's back up that we were somehow trying to "steal" the article. People can indeed be funny.
I suppose it all depends on where you want to take it - Bryan Talbot reckons the Bayeux Tapestry could easily be the earliest British comic strip. Actually I note it already say Scott McCloud thinks so too so I might drop a note in (although not the banner for now). (Emperor 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
Posy Simmonds is definitely one as her most-recent strips in the Guardian are a full page [26]. Obviously all of those fall under comic strips (I think I have one of Steve Bell's Maggie Farm-era collections and they read very well as a full comic. Private Eye must have 4ish comic strips as well as more cartoons than I would want to count and it is clearly an important part of their mix - I suspect tagging the page wouldn't go down well though) but it struck me recently that Simmons is really not doing anything different to the single page stories 2000 AD run from time-to-time apart from the fact hers are part of a longer narrative - I've not got any of her recent work collected but I assume it reads pretty seamlessly as a whole in trade format. (Emperor 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Warrior

The comic was recently moved when the name, Warrior (comics), was fine while the new name (comic book) is less so but I can't seem to undo the move which is odd - any idea what I'm doing wrong? (Emperor 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for that. I'm unsure what was going wrong - I was submitting it perfectly fine but nothing was happening. I've seen it done before by non-admins (often in an edit war-style) so it should be doable. All very odd - fixed now anyway. (Emperor 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Blood Brothers (comics)

Hello Hiding. I've unprotected this article. It was protected for quite some time so it's okay to unprotected and see if the war is over (or, if at least the warrying parties will commit to keep discussing rather than start making unilateral changes right away). Best regards, Húsönd 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Work group unassessed cat naming

Not a biggie but unassessed articles are going into a redlinked cat - seems the categories that were sketched out are named "article" and the redlinks are to "articles". I've made the Marvel one workable and you can see the issue here: Category:Unassessed-Class comics articles by work group. Easily fixed - if you pick one I'll sort them out. I'm just not sure which is the preferred naming. (Emperor 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for that - it wasn't really a big issue as quite a few people have been assessing as they went through and so most unassessed categories are empty (helped by the fact that the first ones tagged are usually the big names). However, that has been a bit hit and miss and so it was fairly straightforward - BOZ has been systematically going through the Marvel characters and that is what made the issue obvious. It would have come up at some point anyway as the coverage spread but it is handy to catch it so early.
Anyway everything else seems to be working smoothly and everything looks spiffy. ;) (Emperor 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Admin possibility

Re: If such things were allowed, I'd transfer my admin powers to you -- for some reason, that gave me a chuckle when I read it. And regardless of how serious that was or wasn't, thanks for saying so. As for the frustration thing, I don't actually get frustrated very easily. There are times when I have to decide to get frustrated and to express it because it seems useful for the situation -- maybe not for the short run but for longer-term considerations. Sometimes it's better to look unreasonable than to look like a pushover. Knowing when frustration needs to be expressed in a virtual environment like this is trickier than real life because of the lack of body language, so you have to use trial and error to see when it works. Sometimes it turns out to have been the wrong way to go. You can't know until you try. Among the many reasons I'm not sure if I want to be an administrator is because right now, I can pick and choose how reasonable I need to be. Although I've never vented to the point of asking someone anything remotely like "Are you totally deranged?", I can still test out some "emotive language" (as Asgardian put it 13 months ago) that I don't think I ought to use as an admin.

There's no rush. Right now, I want to spend some time working on what I consider to be some of my weak points, which is a good exercise regardless of any RfA. For example, I've seen people vote against admin nominees because of a lack of experience with images, and I do very little with images, mainly because I like working with words. As I recall, the only picture I've ever added is of George Romero from last summer's Comic-Con. And I really need to use more of the tools already available to us like VP before anyone makes the case that I need admin tools.

Again, thanks, Hiding.

Take care,

"Doc" Doczilla 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof.[27] I've noticed several people using it lately. From what I've seen, they appear to be making appropriate edits with it, so I've added myself to the list of people who want approval to try it out. Doczilla 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration made

After discovering the edit history at Awesome Android, I've initiated a request for arbitration myself at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Comic book characters. I'm letting you know because I mention the rfc you created as one of the dispute resolution methods tried. Hiding Talk 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I left a placeholder for future comment, but I'd like to read what each has to say before commenting there. Though I don't believe I'm directly involved in the dispute, I've been the "impartial thrid party" several times, so I guess it depends on how one is defined as "involved". Also, I may have missed it in the links, but I think that the debate at Whizzer probably should be at least mentioned (I hesitate to edit your nom to add more references, since it's your statement : ) - Anyway, thanks for the heads up. - jc37 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
2¢... (and apologies to Hiding for adding to the thread) ...but even as an "impartial third party", maybe because of it, you're in a position to comment on what has been done to mediate the situation, and what you've seen as results. - J Greb 03:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc, if you think that's vital then you need to add it and make a statement as an uninvolved party asap, to ensure that the committee read it before deciding whether to take the case. I don't know how arb-com works these days, but for me this is the last roll of the dice; I don't know where else to go from here. Personally I think both users need to be put on revert parole at the least. Hiding Talk 09:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom ettiquette...

So... just so I'm straight on what happens next... it's up to Asgardian and Tenebrae to comment then for other involved, but not named editors, such as myself, BOZ, Doczilla, Net, etc, to chime in? - J Greb 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Both parties have made statements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Comic book characters. Hiding Talk 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up : ) - I need to go for now though. I presume that I'll have a chance soon, though. - jc37 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

that case

Oh, I wasn't saying there's no point to the case. I'm just saying that, after all this time, I'm skeptical (probably more pessimistic actually) as to what it will actually accomplish. I do realize that there have been times when outsiders have asked why there haven't been more blocks, more reports, etc., to establish the need for intervention. Given the history, I doubt this arbitration case will fix everything, so I'm asking both Tenebrae and Asgardian what they each really think will have to happen. Aside from pointing out what anyone has done wrong in the past, where do they each think this needs to go in the future? Doczilla 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of superheroes

I've been looking over Category:Lists of superheroes and can't figure out why List of Jewish superheroes appears in italics. I can't find anything on either page or the redirect page that would make that happen. Doczilla 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I put some initial thoughts at Category_talk:Lists_of_superheroes. Doczilla 06:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman

Hi Hiding, I'm replying per your comments on the Batman talk page. I have been doing a long-term revamp of the page in the past year (sometimes working it out on a user page, sometimes not) in order to spruce up what I felt was at the time a lackluster article that did not adhere to current FA standards. I've done a lot since then. The reworking of the "Skills, resources, and abilities" page was one of the last things to go, and I am about halfway done with that on my user page. However, as I have related to Doczilla on his talk page, with the recent talk page debates about section headings and listing every Batman writer and all that (which I feel miss the point of what I was trying to do for months and instead focused on irrelevant minute) I've decided to step back from working on the article for the time being due to frustration. I do plan to continue fixing up the article in the future, but I don't know when. WesleyDodds 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I did notice your work on Superman, and if you notice the "In other media" section on Batman is closely modeled on the one on that page (By closely modeled, I mean I copied the Superman one onto my temp page, cut and pasted Batman info, and then tweaked and referenced what I needed to. It's a good model.) I have been meaning for ask for you help (especially in rewritting and/or expanding the lead) but you always seemed busy. WesleyDodds 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent project stuff

Not sure I'm with you on the move of the clean-up to be a sub-page of the noticeboard, for me it would be a top level page. Also, on the {{WPCMC}}, you've hidden the workgroups in the resources section, I'd rather have it shown. It looks like we're starting to tread on each others toes a bit, I was planning on running through that to add templates, so I guess this is the part where we start talking. :) I had been planning to archive the notice board, but I saw you split it off into sub-pages, which is another way to go. Hiding Talk 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ack! Stepping on toes was not what I was attempting to do.
In reverse order:
  • I was/am trying to make archiving a bit more intuitive, and to try to keep the "noise" on the noticeboard down a bit.
  • Which led to realising that we needed a cleanup noticeboard. (We have cleanup stuff everywhere.) And the "Cleanup" subpage seemed to fit the need. I honestly couldn't decide if it should be WP:CMC/Notice Board/Cleanup or just WP:CMC/Cleanup. either is fine with me. (I toyed with names like Cleanup Board, and even Cleanup Crew : )
  • Please fix the "hidden" facet of the template. I have no preference as to what should be hidden or how. And also the font sizing: I am unsure if the resources should be "small" or the same size as the other project stuff. (Though I think I'm getting decent at template editing, I'm still a bit of a novice when it comes to some of the more advanced features : )
I hope this clears up some. I actually was at the point of "one more edit", and then noting the noticeboard changes on the Project talk page (which I'll still do, if it's cool with you.)
Also (unrelated), please note some discussion on Doczilla's talk page about adminship. - jc37 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I never meant to say you were treading on my toes, just that it felt like it, but that's my problem, and hence the message. I was thinking along similar lines as you but arriving at different solutions. I was trying to pull all the clean up stuff together, I've been re-organising the clean up categories, so it was sort of like, "woah", as Keanu used to say. Not that that makes you Bill to my Ted, of course, and now I've typed that it's reminded me of the time Grant Morrison went ape shit at Evan Dorkin for drawing him into an issue of Marvel's Bill and Ted comic. Christ, we're all fan boys somewhere. I was just basing my plans for the comic template thing on the military history project's one, I tend to base everything on their approach lately, it seems to work. I was thinking of suggesting a monthly newsletter, just pulling together the stuff at the noticeboard, just a way of tying us all together a bit better. I suppose my wiki-break is over. I know nothing about template editing, apart from what I learnt editing them. God help me if I had to write one from scratch blind. Oh, and I was flattered by the bureaucrat offer, but it's not my bag and I'd never pass in a million years. All you do as a crat is monitor rfa and close them, and promote them, and I don't want to be beholden to that, I've had my fill of slavishly attending to one process at current events and the portal, it doesn't work for me. And I haven't got in my recent history any edits which demonstrate I know what consensus is. I don't tend to do afd closes anymore, there seems to be enough admins now that I barely delete the odd prod, no-one needs me poking my nose into afd and upsetting everyone. Which isn't to say I couldn't call a consensus, just that ain't nobody going to believe it when the only place I pull it is outta my arse. Anyway, keep on keeping on, and I'm sure we'll untangle these wires and then work out how to cross a whole load more. I think I'm going to kick up some issues sooner rather than later as I go through the unassessed category and redirect a whole swathe of articles based on how I read policy and guidance. It's a crazy place that we have all these rules and that and at the end of the day, you're still playing a hunch. Be bold and ignore all rules are all it adds up to, the rest are just justifications for why you did so. Hiding Talk 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well (trying to sift through the stream-of-conscousness : ) - I have to say that I was/am in awe of your work regarding assessment. Also, there's more to being a crat than RfA (bots, and such), But I understand your perspective. Just wanted to run that by you as an option. And I think that we should be a lot more involved with the fiction MoS. If the MoS is supposed to match "current practice", among other things, we should probably all get "on the same page", as it were. As for the template, I can see about fixing the "hidden" problem (though I may just comment it out until we can fix it.) What was your preference for the cleanup page's name? And when I'm done with the noticeboard, it should be a static page, with all the entries on subpages. (Which can make it protectable, if we ever have issues in the future. Working on making the main WikiProject page that same.) And while we're organising things, once I'm done with this, I think I'm going to look for all the resources and put them all on a resources page. And when I'm done with that, the main page should be empty enough to merge "Getting started" to it. And after that, I want to update our Collaboration of the month process. Anyway, that's all my "short range" plans as far as the Project pages. Essentially, arrange the tools in such a way that we can find them easier and more quickly, without having to look over several lengthy (and daunting to the newbie) pages of misc. information. And I like the newletter idea (I've wondered about that myself...) But in my experience with us at the Comics Project, is that everyone actually does edit more than do Project stuff, so maybe we should make it quarterly instead of monthly : ) - jc37 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Loved the analogy. (Reminds me of a scene of musical chairs in the musical Evita.) And sure, I'll add those to my "list" : ) - jc37 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi-jack

  • Damn, my thread has gone and I can't be arsed to cut and paste it all over so I'll butt in on this one. Further thoughts: we could transclude the cleanup page to both the noticeboard and (a newly revamped) collaboration page, as well as it being standalone. We could cull the resources off of the cleanup page to somewhere else. We could also think about transcluding, um, I've lost it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation into the deletion section of the noticeboard. I can't remember, is it only afd that has each debate on an article specific subpage? You know, I remember when we couldn't transclude for fear the servers would collapse. Plus ça change... Hiding Talk 21:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    Well, part of my intention was to cut down how much was on the notice board. There comes a point where it just becomes too much scrolling text. (For example, I can see the purpose of "recent creations" being on the notice board, but for the above reason, I placed it at the bottom of the page.)
    And after reading your comments, I think I've finally come up with a good name for the "Cleanup" page. How about "Requests for cleanup"? Since that's actually what's on that page. Requests for comment, or disputes belong on the Notice board, assuredly, but general requests for cleanup or general collaboration, can go on the cleanup page.
    I've looked at that comics and animation deletion page. Transclusion of some kind sounds like a good idea Though I'd prefer a list rather than the whole discussions), but let's wait and see if the animation WikiProject actually gets off the ground first?
    Also, you never commented on it, but do you have any issues with "Getting involved" being merged to the main WikiProject page? - jc37 08:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    I can see a value in cleanup and collaboration merging, since they both should amount to the same thing. I think whilst the afd page is relatively small that transclusion wouldn't hurt, but take your point. As to merging the Getting involved to the WikiProject page, I think you should at least try it and see how it all works. Don't mind me getting my nose bent out of shape, and don't let that stop you doing it. I'm a little annoyed I interrupted you halfway through what you were doing, to be honest, in that it put doubt in your mind and changed what you were doing. Be bold. We can always talk afterwards. ;) Hiding Talk 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes sir : ) - jc37 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Amalgam characters don't die easily.

I really hate picking on anyone by "name" but Bluecatcinema won't respond to the notices I put on his/her page, but is stubbornly continuing to insert unsourced Amalgam character information into articles. Maybe it would help if someone else would offer a comment asking if the person would please stop adding such information while we're discussing this at WikiProject Comics and to contribute to that discussion. Doczilla 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vertigo Comics

We're pretty much discussed out regarding the move of the above page. The general consensus is that Vertigo (imprint) is more future proof but Vertigo (comics) is perhaps in line with guidance. You're the only one who strongly argued against imprint, so if you could pop back in and maybe we can get the whole thing squared away? Hiding Talk 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and you're right. I have concerns about future usage, and potential confusion, but I'll defer to "imprint" as better than "comics", at least. If you'd like, I can see about adding a section to naming conventions. - jc37 11:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to share your concerns but figure it's a fight for another day, and for me it's not really worth fighting about anyway. I'd much rather we had solid articles at fairly germane names than awful articles at the best name possible and every variation redirected in. I'm happy just to agree to whatever is passing as consensus now and let future Wikipedians clean up our mess. ;) I'm growing wary of writing anything down these days, after I see what people do with all the things I've written down. Only last month someone told me I was wrong, using words from a policy I wrote to prove it. :) But don't let me stop you, you'll probably be better at summarising it than me at any rate. Hiding Talk 11:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there another disambiguation phrase that we can use? (And I wonder what DC Comics calls Vertigo...)
Also, I sooo understand. (For example, every time someone points out that what I'm suggesting does not follow comics naming conventions. : ) - jc37 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
DC use imprint at [28] and there's this copyright notice, although I don't know where it's linked from, [29], which reads "Published by Vertigo Books.An imprint of DC Comics" Now whther that means the legal name of Vertigo is Vertigo Books, and whether you'd get consensus on that as well is something I can't speak to, so otherwise you're looking at (imprint) or (comics). I'd rather go with comics, but... (publisher) feels wrong, (subsidiary) I'm not sure about, (company) or (DC Comics) are plausible but the latter lacks brevity and the former lacks accuracy. I don't know how US law works, so I can't turn up a registration, not in New York anyway, maybe a subsidiary doesn't need to be registered, and they're both subsidiaries of Warner Bros Entertainment. Hiding Talk 12:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sold on Vertigo Books. Imprint is just used in too many ways to show "subsidiary". Thank you for the links : ) - Would you mind adding them to the discussion there? - jc37 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Miscommunication at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comixtalk

There seems to be some miscommunication at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comixtalk. I think I answered your question by saying "We can't write a neutral article based on press releases." Maybe you have a good idea for merging this that I don't see yet, but I don't see how, without better sources, we can merge this into any other article without giving this undue weight compared to every other blog that has written about itself an/ore recieved minimal press mentions. And I don't think we ought to have an article that is the equivalent of List of web sites that have issued press releases or anything. Does that make sense? Again, maybe you have a great idea for a way of merging this in a neutral manner, but I don't see it yet, so maybe you could articulate your merger vision more clearly. Until then, I probably won't see a way to cover this topic in a neutral manner without better sources. I'd hate to see all the non-neutral/incorrect information about "webcomics community" "screaming for a centralized hub" and "the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics" jammed into some other article. Does that make sense? Or do you still need to keep asking the same question without answering mine? --Dragonfiend 13:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You didn't actually answer my question, which is why I restated it. I asked if there was "any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant", and you answered by stating "We can't write a neutral article". At no point did I ask if we could write a neutral article on this topic. Reading your response on my talk page, it seems your answer is possibly. As to why and where it should be merged, I think that's best discussed in the actual debate. Thanks. Hiding Talk 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess I assumed you meant merge it with an article. What non-article (a list maybe?) do you propose we merge it with? What do you propose we merge? --Dragonfiend 14:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, you're attempting to rebut me by stating we can't add information sourced from press releases. That's the source of our misunderstanding. I asked a far broader and more general question, one you've answered to my satisfaction. As I stated before, issues specific to the article are best discussed in the deletion debate. Thanks. Hiding Talk 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not attempting to rebut you as I have no real idea what you're trying to say. You asked me a question, and I've attempted to answer it. I don't think one can really rebut a question. Since I'm trying to get some clarity from you on what your position is and answers from you to my questions, and neither of those seem to be very forthcoming, I'd hate to fill that AfD up with us going around in circles asking the same questions over and over. So, have I answered your questions to your satisfaction yet? Have you provided any answers to my questions? --Dragonfiend 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nightcrawler edits

I noted your reverts of my cn tag placement in the article, and it appears you were correct in removing some of them. However, while WP:LEAD says to try and avoid citations in the Lead, it doesn't banish them altogether; I should know, I fought long and hard to have them removed completely, and was unsuccessful. Therefore, I know that avoiding citations in the Lead requires one of two things - either stating things in a general enough manner that the statemetns aren't likely to be be questioned/contested, or to break the rules and ignore the rules altogether. I cited what needed citing. This edit removed citation tags asking for verification of information that either did not appear in the article or wasn't cited within the article. Your next two reverts I am willing to concede might provide satisfactory information about the book (though not enough for the listed artists). Your last revert draws attention to the idea that all of the events descrbed in the ensuing passage all occured within the same issue - and they did not. This is why it seems fairly important that, when plot points develop, to cite a reference point inthe comic. You are free to discuss the matter in the article discussion page, but I have reverted the two instances I have drawn attention to here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also

Do you fancy pointing over at Category talk:Lists of superheroes. I asked Doc his thoughts on all the lists and he's posted there, and I think there's some substance in what he says. Hiding Talk 21:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, though not at the moment, as I have to go rather soon. - jc37 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

I just want to say that this (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#View by Hiding) was well said. Very well said. I'm not going to get involved, because I haven't read, nor do I have time to read, many of the other arguments, but you've already convinced me. FerralMoonrender (MyTalk • MyContribs • EmailMe) 01:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it

Hindsight is a very useful thing. Granted the information you had at the time, your decision was perfectly reasonable - trust me, no hard feelings from me. Thanks for the note - it was totally unexpected. -- Tawker 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA/Emperor

Now you know how I felt about RFA/Carcaroth (grin) - jc37 20:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I felt it then too. I'm another who tried to get him to run a couple of times. It's like having kids, watching editors grow into admins. And then half the time they don't even write. ;) Hiding Talk 20:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Rofl. Well as another that you did nominate, I hope I "write" enough : ) - jc37 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're the only one that does now. Chris seems to have left, Xoloz doesn't have to, it's just heartening to know he's still here, and I don't think I've spoken to The Tom since I nominated him. Me and him used to be big at WP:CFD, back in the day. To think he passed with a 16/1/2. Those were the days. Hiding Talk 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, but I just had an overwhelming urge to find you a rocking chair : ) - jc37 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To muller a tune, whatchoo wanna go and put tearz in my eyes? ;) Hiding Talk 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Awww... (looks around for your shawl, to comfort you...)
Incidentally, I thought that the "smiles" were nice, btw. - jc37 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[After giving jc37 a {{smile}}] Might as well complete the set then. Hiding Talk
Now that was nice, thank you. I hope that it didn't look like I was hinting, because I wasn't. - jc37 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel at this point I must point out I'm a married man. Have a good night. I really should be working, I've been avoiding it since Wednesday. Hiding Talk 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! You must be related to Kbdank71 somehow, usually he's the only one who makes me laugh like that. : )
Anyway, have a good night : ) - jc37 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Hiding,
I'm sorry I haven't written more but you know how it is, one day your turn around and you are now longer the new kids and suddenly your chores seem to be a lot more grown-up and your time just seems to disappear. It looks like now it is going to be my turn to have all the youngsters asking me for advice and to fix things that they've broken or don't quite understand (well if they are anything like me anyway ;) ).
I must admit the nomination came out of the blue - the first thing I knew I'd been nominated. Although I am in a different place now (and have more admin-style experience under my belt) I can't say if I wouldn't have tried to wriggle off the hook again.
That said I'll be sure to write more often and I might even send a postcard ;)
Later,
Emperor 00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Also I would have told you about the RfA but I know there have been big problems caused by canvassing and wanted to try and keep as hands-off as possible on this. I'd hate to think I'd eventually been bum rushed into this and then cock it all up (which is just the kind of silly thing I'd do). I genuinely didn't think I was ready at the time you asked me and I think I'm in a better position to use the tools and to get the vote. The big plus is it means I won't have to keep hassling you to do things for me - instead I can move on to hassling you whenever I can't get them to work ;) You ain't getting away quite that easily :) (Emperor 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Ballistic merged into Bloodlines

Hi. On Nov 8 you merged the Ballistic (DC comics) article into the Bloodlines article. I was wondering why it was merged and what I needed to do to get it back as an individual article. I'm new and inexperienced at this so your help with this would be appreciated. My user name is kyletheobald. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyletheobald (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: My non-admin closure of Rincewind

Hi Hiding,

Thanks for taking the time to stop by my talk page and comment about my speedy closure of the Rincewind AfD yesterday. I don't think you're out of date or missing anything--the section on non-admin closings states very clearly that non-admin closes are welcomed during backlogs. My choice to close it early citing WP:SNOW was primarily motivated by the fact that the discussion had started taking a bit of a nasty turn, with new commenters adding disparaging comments about the nominator and the sole dissenting voice being effectively shouted down. Although I'm sure an administrator would have come along sooner or later, I decided to be bold and put things to a stop before any real accusations started flying.

But your point is well-taken, and I won't be doing any more early non-admin closures.

As for your other question, I have considered running for admin, and I've decided it's something I'd like to do. However, I've also read enough RfA backlogs to know that I probably wouldn't have a shot if I ran now, and since I don't want to get ahead of myself, I've put myself on editor review to get some feedback on how I'm doing overall instead. So hopefully after some reviews and admin coaching I'll be a bit more certain of where I am in terms of knowledge about how this place works; when that happens, then hopefully you'll drop by my RfA to put in your two cents :)

Thanks again for the helpful advice! --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 09:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for the kind words. In that case, your point is very well taken and I'll be sure to watch AfD for similar discussions from now on :)
As for your question about why I don't think I'd pass RfA, I think the number one factor holding me back is my perceived inexperience. Although I've been here for well over a year (and read my fair share of policies during that time), it's only in the past couple of months that I've really gotten involved. I think my edits and behavior thus far are solid (all of my AIV requests have resulted in blocks, for example), but I believe many voters would regard me as a relatively unknown quantity and thus be hesitant to lend their support.
While I think I could use a little more time and experience to make sure I pass the process, if you do decide to scan my contributions and surprise me, I'll trust your judgement and give it a run. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 07:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My CSS files

Hey, were you doing anything interesting with them? Not that I mind of course, I'm just curious :) It was a skin that I was trying to create (and it needs the corresponding .js file) but I've abandoned it for the moment because I couldn't get the layout right. -- DatRoot 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page)
I was being nosy and trying it on my css, and I blanked the wrong css subpage after having a look at it. It's a good design, but it doesn't quite integrate with what I've got. My apologies for messing about, Hiding Talk 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise - as I say I was just interested. It was still very much a WIP. -- DatRoot 15:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Revising our editorial guidance

Regarding this, [30], see this, [31]. That's why it is a good idea to keep localised copies of your talk page messages. :) Hiding Talk 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Though those were similar they weren't Wikipedia:Television episodes : ) - jc37 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you're on break...

...but what doe we do with shite like this - User talk:J Greb#Phil Sandifer heads up - ?

Thanks - J Greb 03:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also

Per User_talk:Hiding/Archive 2007#Oh, also - I responded there : ) - jc37 07:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Agf1

Template:Agf1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Qst 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

fr:Naissance d'un album de Tintin

Hi Hiding, I was back on wikipedia for a stroll, and saw that my translation of fr:Naissance d'un album de Tintin has disappeared. Do you know why ? Lvr (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

School project

Since you asked . . .

I had to use Google to find the answer to your question. I wasn't sure which discussion that came up in, but I distinctly remembered using the phrase "Wait a minute" when it occurred to me what he'd said, so that made it easy to find. In Rogue reverter, won't listen or respond, he made this comment:

As for 3RR, the first time was simply an experiment. I wanted to see if Wikiepdia followed through (I wrote a paper on Wikipedia and procedues). (dated 13 December 2006)

I responded to something else entirely before those words struck me. My reply:

Wait a minute. It just hit me: Asgardian, you just said you deliberately violated 3RR as an experiment while writing a paper. You're not editing much this week because you're taking finals, aren't you? Did you start these edit wars as an "experiment"? (dated 13 December 2006)

That was eleven months ago, and it was about one specific disruptive action. He never directly said that any of the rest of it was or was not an experiment. Doczilla (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Village Pump

Sorry to pass in here out of the blue, but I saw the topic at the pump. I looked at the afd debate, and, having read the comments at the afd, I have to say I can see no discussion, no-one is engaging and looking to build consensus, and the one objection has not been addressed. I'm also disturbed that you state at the pump you gave the opinions expressed by the admins in the debate greater weight. Admins are simply editors who become admins when using admin tools. If they aren't using the tools or discussing actions resulting from using the tools, they are just editors and their opinions are worth the same as every other editor. I'd take more care when closing afds, it's hard working out the contentious ones but that's what admins are trusted by the community to do. Hiding Talk 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hiding. I would like to start by saying thank you for wanting to dicuss this topic with me. Secondly, I didn't mean that administrator !votes should help swey the AFD in favour of their comments, because that would be a violation of a whole host of policies, unwritten rules and guidelines. I also strived to meet with non-admin closing AFDs guidelines, all of which, in my opinion, I complied with. For example, I didn't interact in the AFD as part of the general discussion, all !votes were keep, consensus seemed reached (even though some may have been "pile on" edits) and the rationale was provided in the closing line. I would also like to mention the fact that, as a participant at AFD since July 2007, I have gained a greater understanding of what is consensus and what isn't. It is usual (IMO) where articles that have been misplaced at AFD gain a unanimous keep and it is regular that all keeps are left short as per the first one or two users who explain their reasons for keeping the article, like here for an example. Thanks once again for replying to me and I'm sure that we can work together in the future at AFD, and I will try to maintain a stricter policy on what other users may see as consensus. Regards, Rudget.talk 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for the note. I'll check through the category this evening and see how the land lies. It may be the redirects are fine but personally I'd rather deal with things on a case-by-case basis (or relevant block of pages if they exist like the Planetary characters) but again I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to all this, just different ways of getting the "best" result for everyone. after all there are many paths to enlightenment. ;) (Emperor 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

I've had a quick skim and that is a fine set of nasty articles there. Some of them can stay redirects for the time being until someone can be bothered to write more than a sentence [32], some of them needing merging somewhere (if you have only ever appeared in Howard the Duck or are a lacky of Kang the Conqueror then I can't see why they'd need their own entry) and some I'll undo and ask for improvements. I'll not do anything with them unless I can think of something and some have me stumped: "minor characters in Achewood" for one I'd lean towards AfDing it and see what happens unless there is a webcomic wiki we can transwiki this to - I'll have a look around and see how the land lies (obviously comixpedia would be the answer but it has rather run into the ground [33] - they seem against moving it to Wikia but....). Some of them give me The Fear: Aristophanes for one, not just because of their specific entry but because of the sheer number of redlinks on Crux (comics) and something broader needs doing there to head off the possibility of that one comic spinning of dozens of new articles on characters, most of whom have only appeared in a few issues - I think it might be worth unlinking them and starting a discussion on the talk page. If someone wants to expand on the characters it might be worth either splitting it off or warning them off.
Anyway you are right to target them and I'll have a more detailed ponder on their respective fates later tonight. (Emperor 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
I'm not saying any of those can survive in their current form but simply redirecting isn't going to solve the problem and I'd rather use the other solutions suggested by WP:FICT, in particular bringing characters together into character specific entries, although it is a bit tricky knowing what level to pitch this as.
Ballistic is a tricky one. They aren't really viable as a standalone entry but redirecting is difficult as there are series and spin offs and then they have appeared in Infinite Crisis (along with other characters - all of whom probably need to be done at the same time). I'm still pondering that one and suspect merging all of the Bloodpack together might be the way forward or we refocus the DC Comics characters as mentioned on the main talk page.
I suspect we are probably on the same page in that something does need doing with most of those articles but I feel redirecting isn't the way. The solution to them is going to be different and some of them will be tricky. However, if we can sort out things like the Planetary characters then it creates a solid precedent and a good example which we can point to when trying to fix other articles (especially as, despite their being in the Wildstorm Universe they don't interact with the other groups, odd as Ellis created a lot of them, but handy for our purposes). (Emperor 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC))
All I'm suggesting is we deal with these articles on a case-by-case basis. Justice Battalion contains nothing that can't be found in the main Kingdom Come article and might as well be redirected. If there was something worth keeping I'd have voted merge, if the whole thing seemed like it could be expanded then I'd have gone for keep. The problem with the Terrible Three is part of the broader problem with Amalgam characters and there is nothing savable.
The problem with using it as a clean-up tool has been underlined by the various reversals - you could go through redirecting them and other editors could undo your hard work and in the end nothing gets done. Or you could get sick of us ;) and wander off to sunnier climes and the entries languish in redirect purgatory and either nothing gets done or they end up being reversed and a proportion will get deleted.
I agree that something needs doing with those entries (and you are right I think we need to update our guidance - although it would be handy to have things in place for people to add things to, like a list of characters) and we should also pre-empt widespread imposition of WP:FICT by cleaning up our own house (I mentioned this to the Warhammer 40k Project when they dropped me a note about it) but I think we should do it properly as we go through rather than hiding them away under a redirect like parents locking their embarrassing mutant child in the attic (not that I was one but we had one in our road, or so I thought).
Doing something like merging all the Planetary characters or the New Bloods in one go would also help us avoid complaints and it might help focus people's minds on the problems so they can then go forth and address a similar issue. (Emperor 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
I think that's a winner. Rather than just shuffling them off to redirects (with all the attendant issues I mention above) we should have a cards on the table discussion and engage as many editors as possible, achieve consensus and once we get a few examples under our belt it should go quite smoothly. Rather than you having to do all the footwork and get bogged down in discussing the whys and where forms whenever people object we will have clear examples and discussion to point people to. Also the bulk will tend to fall naturally into batches, we can all pitch in and with, say, half a dozen of us each going lead on a different batch then it should all be fairly routine.
In an ideal world anyway. ;)
Hopefully we can keep ahead of any major problems with WP:FICT and end with much more solid articles (and with a bit of transwiking not much information need be lost due to trimming, editing, etc. (Emperor 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
I noticed the Cleanup page appeared on Category:Comics along with another page and they should probably be tidied away somewhere else but the categories aren't specifically on that page which would suggest they are coming in from one (or more) of the templates. I can (and will) go digging through them but as there are a lot I was wondering if you might know which ones to look into. Cheers. (Emperor (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
Ah ha - I did check back and refreshed and the other two stayed there but they are gone now so you must be right. Thanks for spotting it. (Emperor (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
Yeah I might not have been 100% truthful about the not hassling you ever again ;)
Thanks for the tips. There is a category I want to rename/recreate and rather than using {{db-self}} I can play with the buttons where I'm not going to upset anyone. The block user button? Now where is that? Oh I see. I wonder what would happen if I.... (Emperor (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Radio DRV

Is there canvassing in operation here too?
If you mean as far as the DRV goes? I think so. Whispering 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice of you

Thank you very much for that very nice reply! I wish there more people like you on Wikipedia! --69.22.254.111 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration workshop page

I think you might want to rephrase the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop#User Tenebrae on civility parole for one year one way or another, as the title refers to Tenebrae but the statement itself only mentions Asgardian. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo fixing

Thanks for your concern. Didn't actually notice I was starting to tread in talkspace pages, so I will stay to mainspace as my AWB is programmed. — E talkBAG 10:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm here to apologise for my unnecessary questioning on your rename request at WP:CHU. I was out of order, so I ask for your forgiveness on this matter. I completely understand if you wish to revert this. Best wishes, —Qst 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Your real name still appears in a couple of spots on this page and your user page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In his signature too, so I don't think it's a massive concern. Nice of you to point it out though. :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Firefly

Given that your suggested title for the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book is Characters of Firefly, shouldn't the recommend list include List of minor characters in the Firefly universe? In fact, it seems that it would make sense to move that article to provide a starting point, then merge the others. Just my 2 cents. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I seeeeeee you!

You're not very good at playing hide 'n' seek, are you? Doczilla (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, one of my first thoughts when I saw you using that was my own surprise that it hadn't been taken. Doczilla (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The otaku, they care. :-)

He he -- re the continuing argument on what Wikipedia's priorities should be and are --
- Time for someone to address a problem with Rio Rita/Femforce mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics: 25 minutes.
- Time for someone to address other problems in subjects of literature, history, and science that I've previously posted: Days, weeks, or (most often) never.
-- Have a good one! -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Very kind. I don't think we've met before? DurovaCharge! 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing

Hey, I was looking at policy pages, essays and the like while constructing an argument and happened across a message of yours that I think you'll find bitterly humorous:

Yeah, I guess we could. So keep speedy deletion and have VfD as a place to debate articles thought to be original research, since unverifiable is now covered at speedy under An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. Everything else goes to cleanup. Otherwise we end up arguing over what constitutes notability. Hiding talk 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
)
P :( --Kizor (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comics

Thanks for pointing me to the manual of style, I hadn't read it before. Sorry for my changes to the Comics article I did without first reading it. RedZionX (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I like what you did with the article, but I just wanted to let you know that 3 of teh external links do not resolve properly, and one of these, to tcj.com, appears three times in the article. If you want any more information, just let me know. Danny (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also look at this and this . Danny (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Arm-twisting

I'm looking for a bit of help "arm-twisting" someone. (though with a smile : )

See this - jc37 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RTV

I think you're looking for a different shortcut here. Forgive me if I'm wrong, and forgive me for intruding either way. Dekimasuよ! 14:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's even useful to disappear in such a high-visibility manner. *shrug*--Father Goose 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Letter column

That's red? Wow. I'm pretty sure a colleague of mine has a chapter on the history of comic book letter columns in a book he was writing. It's been a while since I proofread that for him, so my recollection may have magnified how much information he had on them. I'll check, though. Doczilla (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started the skimpiest excuse of an outline at User:Doczilla/Sandbox/Comic_book_letter_column. As other thoughts cross my mind or I find good sources and facts, I'll add them to the page until we at least have enough of a stub to put it out there. Feel free to do anything you please to the Sandbox draft. Doczilla 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your bit

Despite my personal dislike of userboxes, election banners, and other such decoration, I am flattered. :) Phil Sandifer 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's what happens when you create a template around here, it gets used by everyone for their own purposes (Though User:Hiding wasn't the first to copy it : ) - jc37 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, fair cop. I see you have your votes sown up though. Hiding T 15:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have to admit that I think those three are the most likely to make it (and as far as I can tell, the least controversial). Two bureaucrats, and two people with "hands on" experience with ArbCom. (And yet it's only 3 people, sounds like an old math game : ) - jc37 15:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To be honest though, even before thinking that through, after the fun conversation on NYB's talk page (someone else actually came up with the "look", I just turned it into a userbox), Deskana was my first choice, as soon as I saw they were running. I didn't notice that Raul was running until I was helping edit the template. - jc37 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
On arb elections. Yeah, you could be right. However Phil is someone who, although I disagree with as often as not, I respect him immensely and he bleeds Wikipedia. I think he has the same vision of Wikipedia in his heart as I have, it's just we wear different strength glasses. Hiding T 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually had to do a double take when noting him. My recollections about him were good (though vague). I seem to recall seeing his name everywhere especially in the places I used to "travel" on Wikipedia. His main issue for me is one that several of the cantidates have: GoodBye. I'm not saying it's a "bad thing", it's just something that gives me pause (as does the typical drama that surrounds such.) If this was a year and a half ago, I'd have voted for cool cat in a heartbeat, but lately it's like he's another person. (Same with Splash, someone else I remember respecting intensely, and not so long ago, I remember reading some discussions and wondering who's impersonating Splash...) So, I dunno, maybe it's not unlike the situation of A bowler hat... - jc37 15:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I still think Splash is Splash. I've got a lot of time for Splash. We went at it hammer and tong over WP:NCCAT. Hiding T
"A lot of time" ? - jc37 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you not know the expression a lot of time? [34]. Hiding T 15:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but taking that with the very next sentence had me confused : ) - jc37 15:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am misreading it. The best page we seem to have is Hammer & Tongs (see the bottom). But in hindsight I think it can be read as adversarially, or as co-conspiratorially... - jc37 15:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, we went at it hammer and tong, which is where he got my respect and why I have a lot of time for him. We reached an agreement. People I don't have time for are people who waste your time, just argue for the sake of it. Hiding T 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I know the feeling, there are at least two I can think of that fall under that heading. Not interested in being part of the solution, but willing to complain about the work so far. If someone creates examples, lists references, of even just provides a well-thought-out opinion, I'm appreciative at the very least : ) - (IDONTWANTIT or IWANTIT = ugh!) - jc37 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had better get going. (Though I may want to continue this discussion later after I've finished reading all the info on the cantidates. You and I don't always agree, but in my not so humble opinion, when it comes to expressing what you think, you're sincere, and usually, there's thought behind it : ) - jc37 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, and feel free to think it over, but be minded you know your own mind and heart. I don't always let my head rule my heart, or my heart rule my head. I like Phil. But I understand a lot of the criticism. It all stems from the same underlying thing. What you see is what you get. Take it easy. Hiding T 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You too : ) - jc37 16:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Note

I just noticed your "vote". You may want to revert yourself. it doesn't start until the 3rd.) - jc37 15:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. What's that voting link for at the top of the watchlist? Oh, stewards on some other project. Sheesh, it's complicated. I saw the voting link, but was going through my watchlist. Ho hum. Thanks. Secret already thinks I'm mad. Hiding T 15:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Considering some discussions we had recently, I think you may find the recent changes to WP:PLOT interesting : ) - jc37 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I had half an eye on it, but I thought, let's just detatch from it and see where it goes. It's more or less what I meant, and at least it is someone else's words.:) Hiding T 15:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much where I was with it as well. But still watching : ) - jc37 15:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: irc cloaks (Jdforrester's talk page)

Hey. You need to file a new request at the request page you mentioned and this will override your old cloak. I don't take into account existing cloaks when processing requests. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Frances Lynn

Sorry, I've been watching that article due to the COI issues, and the constant addition of non-reliable sources (like geocities, etc.,) by the subject, and I did not realize the refs were the cite comic ref, I should have taken more time to look at the history to see that it was not her editing it, but looking at it, it appeared she simply was using the Wikipedia page as a reference. My sincere apologies, I was about to revert myself when you caught it. Thanks. Ariel♥Gold 20:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, you are quite right, and I was a bit hasty on that removal, but as you can see from the history, there has been a lot of issues with the subject editing the article, even after the COI guideline was explained, and it was suggested that she post proposed changes to the discussion page, to allow a neutral, non-involved editor add or edit. She has not done that, and I've previously removed a number of non-reliable sources from the article, and tried to explain to her why it was important to have proper sourcing, per WP:BLP. Again my sincere apologies, I made the assumption she had simply linked to the Wikipedia comic page as a ref, and I should have taken a bit more time to look at it. Very unlike me, but I have no problem reverting myself, lol. Ariel♥Gold 20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. User:Asgardian is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Loveless

The name change caught me off guard. While I've enjoyed working with you and respect your opinion highly, you seem a bit aggressive on the Loveless talk page, in particular your reply to my statement about Shields denying the cost. I don't take it personally myself, but others might, so just try to keep a cool head. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is we really don't need any sources about the album itself; what Ceoil and I have access to is pretty comprehensive about the recording, and Brandt Luke Zorn and I have scoured the Internet a bit. The plan is to have the article reach FA status by the end of the year and I'd say we're about 80% done. What I'd say the article needs is more of is contemporary reviews; some of them are just impossible to get copies of now (for example, Spin would most definitely have had a review, but unlike say Time or Rolling Stone they don't have an article archive on their site). Copyedits would also be helpful. I'm bad at reviewing my own prose for grammatical errors, plus it needs to be in British English per the style guidelines. If you find further critical remarks or anything you think might be useful, just post it to my talk page, or e-mail it to me if you need to. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and we'd really appreciate help on the lead section. For some reason that's been tricky for us to sort out properly. Feel free to take a crack at it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need a RFC. I'm reasonably certain we can work out at solution at the Alt-Rock WikiProject page. If we can't, then we go for RFC. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My taking it to the project talk was simply based on the fact that the Irish/British thing hasn't just been a problem on the album page, and that there's a few MBV fans in the project who could centralize discussion there. We're quite involved with the project, and I sometimes wish the Comics project would work as well as this WikiProject, which instead seems to get stuck dealing with the minute details a little too often in detriment to the goal of creating a large, increasing number of high-quality articles, dedicated as everyone there is. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you ever get back to that rewrite of the band page, contact me or this guy. We can help gud. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's more that it's a broader topic than just one article under the scope of the project, and I trust the input of the editors in the project greatly. We generally operate this way, and it generally works great. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to have you wrack your head too much on this subject. Quite the contrary; I'm basically saying "Be cool like Fonzie", 'cause really, we can work it out. Sit back, relax, and wait for polite discussion from others besides myself. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A comment by Bilinda about Googe's lack of work on the album is already present and sourced. The basslines bit would be worthwhile if you can source it and find a tidy place for it in the "Recording" section. I forgot about the tinnitus; worth mentioning if it can be directly tied to the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fittingly, I myself missed that the tinnitus is already mentioned in the recording section. Must be one of those nights. I was wondering where that Eno quote originally came from. Remove the press release ref and replace it with the Melody Maker piece. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Was there a number, letter, or star rating for Loveless in the Melody Maker review? I didn't see one in the e-mail you sent me, but I don't remember if they ever used a rating system. WesleyDodds 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And just saying hi to Hiding

Who, in his guise as mild-mannered reporter persona unknown, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way! --Tenebrae (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have you know that I am now sorely tempted to write an "article" on the character : p - jc37 09:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This looks kind of like how Daredevil technically has a secret identity these days even though everyone knows he's Matt Murdock. Doczilla (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's enough to fool search engines, and in time, it'll fool people. I hope the joke dies down soon enough and people start accepting my request for anonymity. Hiding T 11:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That explains the name change, I guess. And, yeah, your old name, whatever it was, was kind of obvious. Steve Barrett, right? John Carter 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ta. ;) Hiding T 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder who this "hiding" person is... Quite the prolific editor in the last couple days - they're appearing all over my watchlist : )
(Yes I realise why, it just struck me funny is all : ) - jc37 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop changing archived pages all over, such excessive use of AWB to make all these changes claiming RTV is becoming disruptive to recent changes. You are not vanishing, just making a lot of noise. — xaosflux Talk 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I may not have had the best tone above, I personally had at least 15 watchlisted pages from you all at once, your affect on RCP isn't THAT bad. AWB is great tool for improving the project, but your edits do not appear to be helping to create a better encyclopedia. m:RTV clearly states that Your work, including 'signatures' (text indicating your authorship of comments) on all but your own user and talk pages, will usually not be changed or removed. (emphasis mine). These edits are also drawing attention in logs of every one of those pages that you had a former username, deleting your old userpages is typically the extent of how this is processed. — xaosflux Talk 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, and looking at some links it appears you have over 1000 more of these outstanding. I'm not going to block you for disruption or open an RFC, but would ask you to reconsider that if this is really going to help. If not there are certainly much better ways your next 1000 edits could help! FWIW google has over 10,000 links to your old username + the phrase wikipedia, including countless mirrors, and likely will for at least years to come. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 13:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I do understand your desire, though still disagree with the need for these edits, again not to the point where I'm going to start mass reverting them or want to go down any dispute resolution, more along the lines of agreeing to disagree now. FWIW had you not said anything I wouldn't have taken your old username to be your real name, due to the way you capitalized it. As for search engines, sure the site:wikipedia.org ones will go away, but the others may take a long time. Hope things go well, — xaosflux Talk 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please stop. These changes are disruptive and unnecessary. —Lowellian (reply) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Stamp


Here's a stamp from the Faroe Islands for you! Stamps from the Faroe Islands somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Vatomanocu (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not as popular as you : (
I ran a "google search" using just my username and Wikipedia. I got over 800 hits, but besides there being an asteroid/planetoid by that name, and "HeLa H1-JC37 cells" - whatever they are; I only had 2 non-WIkipedia hits. One was a copy of some talk discussion about BJAODN; and the other was a blog concerning some XfD discussion I closed.
Then again, as I've seen concerning others, popularity of this type is not necessarily a "good thing" : ) - jc37 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The potential misunderstanding of the first non-wikipedia link here has really got to piss someone off. I think you probably joined after scrutiny was really high, and also you have never been a member of the mailing list, have you? That really does rocket up the potential hits. Hiding T 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, when I posted that, it was in humour. I wasn't offering some sort of commentary about you. My apologies.
To be honest, I'm guessing I apparently don't travel the circles that "popular" editors travel. I've skated near those waters a few times, but usually the ice was already broken before I could foolishly skate onward (note that I said "usually" : ) - jc37 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well hey. After a bit more determined searching, I found I'm on Wikipedia review (though only as one of a list of people who apparently misspelled concensus for a while...) - jc37 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
At least we avoided mention by name here. [35]. Not sure how well we came out though. Hiding T 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific spot that I'm missing on that page? - jc37 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, given the nature of the conversation so far, did you not have a wry smile on your face when you read "The combination of feuds and relentless focus on negatives associated with Wikipedia creates an obsession by some devoted Wikipedians about the evils visited upon them." Nothing specific though, it was just the way the community as a whole was painted. Anyways, I have to work soon. Take it easy. Hiding T 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I had had to go as well. Hope you had a good day. - jc37 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate Closure

You closed the debate here: Talk:Firefly_(TV_series) as no consensus, but I remind you that consensus is defined globally not locally per WP:CONSENSUS. It is therefore incumbent upon editors to find ways to remedy articles that currently do not conform to our consensus-driven policies and guidelines, which many of those under discussion clearly do not. Closing the debate as "no consensus" is improper, therefore, since there is clear consensus about articles on fictional subjects, which the Firefly series fail. I would ask that you undo your close, therefore. Eusebeus 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. I am just saying that the state of the articles as they are now is in contravention of our existing policies and it remains unclear whether they can be improved since no compelling sources have yet been adduced to demonstrate notability per those policies. Hence, I meant to suggest that further debate is probably required in order to generate a best way forward. I didn't mean to impugn your good faith; just that a close is premature. Eusebeus (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with reopening the debate, especially since any time sources are mentioned, they have been dismissed out of hand by those who want to merge/delete the articles. I can understand why you've done it. However, if you are going to do it, you should reapply the merge tag to the various articles.Shsilver (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but no, I'll leave re-adding the merge tag to the people who have said that the only consensus possible is to merge them.Shsilver (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the debut post by Eusebeus in the debate's reopening. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding, he did indeed intend to reopen to discuss a merge. Maratanos (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry for inadvertently spoiling it for you., - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of what I posted added any new spoilers to what was already typed out, but I apologize for them anyways. I can understand not having seen the end of season 2, but it is unreasonable for you to expect people to not talk about an episode that aired over 6 months ago. And yes I realize it airs at different times wherever you are, but you can still watch it online like I did all last season. --Freak104 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
When the spoilers were posted it wasn't being used as a message board, he was using it to make an example to explain the concept. It turned into a message board like discussion when you complained about the spoilers. And I would also like to point out that it was Anakinjmt who originally posted the spoilers, but Arcayne and I have tried to be nice about it and apologize for the mistake. I'm so glad you could be mature enough to realize that we were apologizing for someone else's mistake even though it was a reasonable mistake for him to make considering the circumstances. --Freak104 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't blame you for getting mad about someone accidentally ruining the show for you. I have had movies ruined for me, and I hate it. I was just trying to apologize for their mistake and to help calm you down by pointing out that they made an honest mistake without any intention of spoiling it for anyone. And now I apologize for the snide/inappropriate comments I made to you during this disagreement, but I'm glad level heads could come through. Take care, and I hope no other shows or movies are accidentally spoiled for you by fellow editors. --Freak104 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

On notability discussion

It's to my regret that I'm far too much in #¤@$ pieces to participate in any intense online debate, but I thank you for doing so. Please persevere; it's the best chance there is right now of bringing about some kind of satisfactory, sustainable situation. As things are, co-operation on fiction coverage stands largely abandoned and WP:N is used as a sledgehammer in its stead. --Kizor (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are retargeting every link to your old userpage? A redirect is created automatically when you are renamed. Sean William @ 11:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind me then. I was not aware you were vanishing. There have been issues in the past with rapid redirect-bypassing. Don't worry about those, though; If you're vanishing, just carry on. Sean William @ 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Cwiki

After reading over Category:Eguor admins (re-reading, due to a WP:UCFD discussion), I noticed a link to User talk:Cwiki. Thought it might interest you. - jc37 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, User talk:Cwiki. That got me less interested in WP:AN. Not my finest hour, but I couldn't see the top or bottom. Again caused by "investigations" into vandalism, a fact that some might say gets glossed over. If certain people hadn't done certain things they wouldn't have had to do other things later. Hiding T 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll claim to have no clue as what was going on with that. (In reading it now, it all seems a bit blurry, but then I'm not going over the diffs, as I presume was done at the time.) And I have to admit that I find your comment above interesting in light of other recent controversies.
That said, none of the above was the reason I posted the link(s), though I'm sure you guessed that : ) - jc37 12:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
FWIW I'll fill in. The Cwiki block was a casualty of the Joan of Arc vandal cleanup. The vandal used a shifting strategy to damage various articles for over 2 years before I identified him, and had been hiding behind an AOL account. Shortly before the community banned him AOL stopped being such a shield for AOL abusers. Checkuser uncovered a bunch of socks, but others were old. I had been the principal investigator on that case and would have approved a good faith unblock immediately if I had been aware of the request, but none of the three administrators who handled that informed me of the request. After a month Cwiki evaded his block on an IP to leave an appeal at my talk page and I immediately unblocked him with apologies on behalf of the project. DurovaCharge! 05:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No-one knew you were the principle investigator. It's not indicated here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#Unblock request. Sorry to sound bitter, it just leaves me the with impression that a cabal exists. Hiding T 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As well as also, which seems to have fallen down there somewhere...

The cwiki thing I don't think I ever understood either. Someone did an investigation and linked a load of accounts as being socks. Someone else blocked them all. One of them asked for an unblock, saying that they weren't one at all. There was a less than clear thread at WP:AN at a time when I thought it was helpful to read the page and try and solve issues. I looked at the unblock and really I should have walked away, but I thought, when you balance it all, it doesn't matter. Blocked user is using a pseudonym, doesn't want to edit but doesn't want name besmirched. Pseudonym means name not besmirched, blocked means can't edit, people indicate good reason for editor being a sock exists, really no-one has lost. Still, I got it wrong and removed my review and let someone else have a go. They also got it wrong. Then someone who had done the investigation held their hands up and sorted it all out as the hero rushing in where fools had previously trod. Although I'm biased & bitter at being put in a tight spot and that last bit is personal liberty with the truth. Yes, more recent events have shone a torch backwards. Hiding T 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sounds to me like you were editing "in good faith". The whole point of WP:IAR and its corollary WP:BOLD is that sometimes we don't have all the "right answers", but that's ok, because hopefully someone else will eventually. (And no, I'm not suggesting that we should boldly block or unblock users, just that you shouldn't feel that you necessarily did "wrong".) - jc37 12:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also

At some point I do mean to update the comics collaboration, but yeah, I don't think it needs to be done on a subpage hived off of where-ever. We should probably just queue a list of articles, tame a bot creator and then have a bot update from the top of the list every week. Anyone can add a comics related article to the list. Then just get the bot to add the old one to a list of former collaborations. That's about all the archiving needed. Something and nothing. I mean at some point to fold the peer review back to the comics project, probably through adding requests to the to do template thing task whatever it is big yellow looking thing that could be beige or orange at the top of WT:COMIC. Waffled long enough. Have discovered AWB and am building pages that need cleanup at User:Hiding/Cleanup, thought of using that for something. Do mean to work up what is it we're supposed to work up, EPISODE or CHARACTER or something of the like. Am also trying to retarget WP:FICT, I think they moved my rewrite to a sub-page though. Hiding T 12:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars for one example : )
I actually had some time on my hands, and was going to do some of what some people call WIkiGnome work, when it occurred to me that this "problem" is more widespread than just these two projects. I did some project surfing and the result was my post to the council page.
Personally, even with all your Wikibreaks, you're one of the hardest working, under-appreciated, Wikipedians I know. Often, whenever I start to ask you for help with something, I actually start to try to think of anyone else who might also be able to help, since I know there's so much on your plate already. (See Doczilla's talk page for a specific recent example, and even he asked me to wait 2 weeks : )
Though now that I know you're becoming an expert in AWB, I may drop you a request or two : )
As soon as the question at the council is "resolved" (or ignored long enough - smile) I'll start in again on what I was doing organising the comics' subpages. Including something specific for the noticeboard on Dec. 31. - jc37 12:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on AWB as yet, but I think it is possible that it can be used to deliver a newspaper, which we mentioned once. What are your grand plans then? I had an inkling to fold peer review and assessment into one, fold exemplars and editing guidelines into one and some other stuff I forget now. Also, what's happening with WP:Animation? That might be worth a resurrection, even if it is just me and you for starters. I'm starting to see the appeal of a comics and animation one now. Sort of. Just figured I'm doing something wrong with AWB, as it tells me there are 19000 articles in Cat:Comics and subcats which do not have a comicsproj template or animé template on. Either that or the category structure leaks. Hiding T 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My grand plans? I think I mentioned awhile back that I'd like to see our references (and "useful pages") merged to a single page. Merge our various collaborative efforts. And cleanup the main page (and likely merge "getting involved" to it as well). I think we should have a way for all the task forces to "share" the project pages (even if it's just with a wink and a nod).
I also like how the noticeboard turned out. At some point when I feel energetic, I'll go through the edit history and restore to the archive pages all the notices that were merely removed. But there's no rush on that. Also, since we have a semi-consensus on the rename of the board, I've already created the main board, and will have the sub-boards for 2008 created by Dec 31 for implementation then. (I intend to "move" - rather than copy - the current noticeboard to an archive, to try to keep the edit history separate.)
I think that's enough of a task list, before jumping in and finding more that probably needs doing : ) - jc37 13:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
As for animation, I honestly didn't feel as if anyone understood. It's as if more people see "comics" and think "comics books" or maybe they'll include comic strips, if we're lucky. But comics and animation has been hand-in-hand since animation started. (whether they be newspaper strips, or, eventually, comic books. And it works both ways: animation that is also done in comics, and comics that become animated. Walt Disney comics and stories is a great example, but so is Casper : )
So anyway, in light of people again not understanding, I'm happy to place "comics-related media" or even just "comics and animation" on the back burner for a bit, until we get the rest of our house in order : ) - jc37 13:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a poor use of the tool – [36]. Your previous identity is clearly available to any user who wishes to check your contributions and to administrators who view the deleted edits on your last user page. It clearly defeats the purpose of m:Vanishing and is a waste of Wikimedia's resources. If, upon your return, you wish to continue making such changes, it is recommended that you seek wider input (consensus etc.) on WP:AN / WP:ANI before continuing. Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hiding. I join Nick in opposing your replacing your past signatures. Note the following words from m:rtv:

Work on the project - Your work, including 'signatures' (text indicating your authorship of comments) on all but your own user and talk pages, will usually not be changed or removed. To change these would be a major source of disruption.

Note the use of the word 'disruption' there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Disruption" according to what, or who? - jc37 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my too-strong language. I'm withdrawing my comment now that I've seen the thread at WP:ANI. The word you are querying is the one used in m:RTV for the activity of replacing past signatures (as quoted in the above passage). I thought we were looking at a White Cat type of situation, which is clearly not the case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your co-operation. This has been educative for me and I apologise for the inconvenience caused. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But this will make all those contextual jokes (the no relation bit) look really stupid! Regardless, I fully support your endeavor. Although my sig is my actual name, my legal name is somewhat obscured (if we ever connect for a beer on that godforsaken island you call home I'll let you know how - but then I'll have to kill block you). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Batman Hidden Comment.

Remove it if you feel you must, but it's your fault if the storm returns. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is says "wish to alter this section significantly," not "don't alter it". I don't see a problem.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The point, I think, is that WP:CON has been reached as to what to say about it and how to say it. Sure changes can be made, but we have to discourage the constant blanking or change from the NPOV from returning.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

If you wish to actually build a guideline based on consensus, then stop forcing your version without significant input from other editors. It's painfully hypocritical. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize that I don't disagree with most of what you're saying and proposing. I was very rude to you in my comments, and I'm sorry about that. I just have this thing about changing guidelines and policy pages dramatically. I'll try harder to be.. more open. -- Ned Scott 00:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources in Batman

I replied to the debate about Batman comics sales around 1985 because I saw it in your contribution history. But as I'm still trying to not be too involved with the article right now, if there are further questions about sources, please contact me directly and I'll try to address the concerns that exist. I spent months adding the vast majority of sources to the article, and I have easy access to all of them. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN

Civility Award
I wish all Wikipedians would use “please”
and “thank you” like you do.
Taric25 (talk) 19:20, December 16, 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellal Amerkhail

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellal Amerkhail requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellal Amerkhail|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Robin (comics)

Hi, Actually that Sexual Interpretations section had been in Robin before, but when I saw that it had been removed I thought that someone who disagreed (or disapproved) had taken it out. I didn't suspect that it was also part of the Batman article since I believed that this kind of analysis was more appropriate to Robin's relationship with Batman rather than just Batman himself. Sorry that I did not include it in the edit summary — I'll try to use it more often in future. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I just wish to ask if you read the closure. If so, then there's nothing further to discuss. - jc37 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But of course

Of course I read the close. I just couldn't see it sticking, on two grounds that don't really matter now. You've got to carry your audience with you. Strike out too far in front and people get lost or start discussing amongst themselves and go in a different direction. Worst case scenario, they turn ugly and start chasing. You didn't seem to have an exit strategy planned. The drv close was a bit off, though, I agree there. ;| Still, don't give up the fight. Hiding T 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To tell you honestly, I only understand about half of what you just typed above. But I think I get the "gist" of it.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. - jc37 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, how to clarify? - I don't want to go too far, because one of the reasons I didn't think the close would stick wasn't an issue. The other was, that it just came out of nowhere. I saw what you were trying to do, but to get that one to stick you would have needed a much longer closing spiel, or a float of the idea in the debate. SO I think you strode out too far in front of everyone, and everyone said, that's not the way we're going, and they went another way. And I thought the close of the DRV was wrong. They should have let you have input, but I don't think it's worth lighting fires over. I hope that in some sense clarifies. Hiding T 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Jc, don't worry about discussing it. It wasn't like you were being a dick, or proving a point. You had an idea, it was a possible solution, it was a good faith move. It was just too far for the consensus entrenched in the category's existence. Don't get bummed out over it and don't stop from thinking up these out of the box solutions. Just remember that some of us take time to see it your way, and we need little sign posts and maybe a sat-nav. All the best, Hiding T 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your generous comments on my talk page, by the way. I don't want my appreciation for them to be lost in the miasm of the events. - jc37 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice board

Incidentally, I'm currently working on setting up the notice board for 2008. So as I just asked Xoloz, please give me a bit to finish with it, then I suppose I'd be happy to discuss or whatever. - jc37 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

K, it's set up here.
On Dec 31, we can change the link in the template to this board, which will leave the edit history of the old board intact.
For a little while, we may have some of the 2007 pages also transcluded to the board (recent creations, in particular). But I can deal with that when the time comes (to see what things actually will need transcluding, since some may be "empty" at that time).
Anyway, hope this helps. - jc37 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, looks like I need to tweak a bit and add some links for the "new" RfC transclusions. But then I'll be done (I hope). If you notice anything else I missed, please let me know. - jc37 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to ask since you're on 'break...

I've got some images and articles that I've tagged for IFD (Amalgams from trading cards) and clean-up (no PRODs this time but, yes Amalgam articles) which User:Doctor Doomsday is removing without addressing the problems.

Is there a notice for this or do we jut let the tag removal go?

- J Greb (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Love that mop

I just read Category:Janitorial admins and wanted to mention how much I like that. Doczilla (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Eddie-Campbell.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Eddie-Campbell.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


English as a 2nd language

Hello St Hiding, I see that you're on a Wikibreak, but this isn't an urgent question, so I'll ask it anyway. How do you deal with editors who edit the English-language Wikipedia but apparently do not speak English natively? Obviously, I would abide by WP:BITE, but I'm wondering how I would even bring it up without potentially being insulting. Certainly, it is possible to make valuable additions to the English Wikipedia even if you don't speak the language particularly well. But, I'm wondering if it might be more profitable for 68.151.70.78 (talk · contribs) to edit Wikipedia in his or her native language. I know I'm making an assumption, but to my mind, the edit summaries seem to indicate someone who speaks a fundamentally different idiom as opposed to a native speaker who merely has poor grammar. Although on the one hand, it would probably be a great way to further one's understanding of English to have one's contributions finessed by other editors, on the other, it would probably be less frustrating to edit articles in one's native tongue. And, given the paucity of articles in some languages, it could also fill a need. But, I am at a loss as to how to suggest this without being offensive. For the time being, I have started a dialog with the editor regarding one edit that I find particularly confusing. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: it might be good to respond here instead of on my talk page as that is where I am currently corresponding with this editor. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Be polite and direct. The IP address tracks back to Canada, so your person could be of French origin or have French as a first language. I'd tread carefully though. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Who, Why? and see what jumps out. The edit summaries are a little odd in places. Maybe invite the user to look at all the user boxes we have, you know, by the way, if you're interested we have these userboxes. You could point to WP:BABEL as well, as a conversation starter. Hiding T 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. The editor stopped corresponding with me and I forgot about this momentarily. I think I'll check and see what the user's been up to lately. GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts and references

You made a comment about "setting up" UCFD that made me go back and do some research. This is a list of your first edits to that page. (Every edit in the first 500 to that page, technically.) I made some "quick notes" after each for my own reference. Feel free to ask for explanations/clarifications. - jc37 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[37] user page vs. cats

[38] and [39] and [40] noting dg and you commenting. (I wonder if that was the last time all three of us directly agreed on something? : )

[41] edu

[42] valid venue

[43] directly related

[44] WikiProject

[45] social : )

[46] directly related

[47] clarify

[48] fascist

[49] cat structure comments

[50] about nominations and UCFD location

[51] "causes"

[52] structure again

[53] broken record

[54] germane

[55] divisive

[56] refute "by interest" argument

[57] cocaine


Confused

I'm not sure what the point of all those diffs is. Hiding T 21:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • And this series of edits has me all at sea. [58], [59], [60]. I think maybe we're at one of those points where we're really not communicating very well. At this point I'll wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year and hope that whatever the issue is sorts itself out or makes itself known. I'm not sure what you are reading into my comments, but whatever it is, it would help me if you let me know what it is. If you're objecting to my comment that I helped set up user categories for deletion, the only thing you mention in the cryptic posting of some old edits of mine, then I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence. I recall discussion somewhere with Radiant about user cats clogging CFD, and I also recall fears on my part later that UCFD was becoming a ghetto and that it should be folded back into CFD. Beyond that, I don't know. Maybe my memory is wrong, that period of last year was a bit squiffy personally for me. But if that is the issue, I'd rather just up and away with it rather than whatever it is we're doing now. All the best. Hiding T 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    You know, we just seem to have a habit of communication breakdown. I dunno, maybe it's (at least) a yearly event : ) - jc37 09:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) First, those three edits were an "oops" by me. I ran the edit counter, and saw that (according to it) "Hiding" had made no edits to the UCFD page. (And since there were 999 users who had, if you edited even once, that should make you Mr. 1000 : ) - But then when I looked closer, it showed that someone with the initials S b had made some edits, so I struck my comment. And then I noticed that Hiding "did" have edits to that page, when I looked at Wikipedia. So that counter must be working from some copy. And then, since my talk page had become, well, well-travelled, I decided that it would be better if I removed the comment out of courtesy. Sorry that it was confusing.

As for the links above, "some" of them seemed relevant to me based on our discussions of late, but I decided to list them all, for completeness;

I found several of them interesting based on some of your more recent comments. Now, of course, we all can change opinions, but I thought that this would be a great way to "bridge the gap" as it were, to kind of see what we each thought. I'm sorry that it came across as "cryptic" to you.

Anyway, I'd still like to talk if you're interested. In any case, I do hope you have a great day, Merry Christmas, and so on : ) - jc37 09:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a gap

You mentioned that you posted those diffs to bridge a gap. The trouble is we're comparing apples and oranges. Those diffs are comments in deletion debates from a year ago. The situation or situations we've been discussing lately are deletion closes. I didn't comment in the deletion debates because frankly, I could care less. But I do care if you're getting stick, and want to try, in my own flawed way, to point out why you might be getting stick. But the more I think about it, the more I think you know why you're getting stick. I'll just shuffle off. I've made whatever points it is I wanted to make and the whole thing is getting silly now. That's my ultimate point. Is any of this really helping? If others are that impassioned about something, let it be. That's the way consensus moves. If over a hundred admins list themselves in a category, let it be, that's the way consensus moves. Consensus is demonstrated in more ways than one. There are many ways to see which way the wind is blowing, and depending upon the activity, you may want to use more than one. I can tell you this much; this isn't the Wikipedia I started contributing to or that I believe in. We were supposed to be building an encyclopedia. Hiding T 16:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • And if you're wondering why I made those choices then and these ones now, all I can tell you is that was then and this is now. Context is king. Hiding T 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
A communication gap. (Which seems, unfortunately, to be becoming wider, though I think I'm starting to see why.)
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you appear to be focused on the particular discussion and closure. I've been attempting to talk about what I think are the "broader issues". I think when you understand those, you'll understand the particular close better.
See, in looking over the links I posted above (and even your recent comments about building an enecyclopedia), it seems to me that you'd actually agree with what the CfD resulars have been saying. It's just that it's been (rather professionally, I might add, kudos to Doc on that count) the presentation which has confused things.
For example, whatever the "intent" of a category's creation, how it's currently being used is often more of a concern. So if those adding themselves are stating rather clearly that it's for "humor" purposes, and that it should be kept as "harmless", we should WP:AGF and believe that that's why they chose to include themselves.
We follow precedent on CFD (not just UCFD), for consistancy reasons. And while exceptions are obviously allowed, double standards are typically a bad thing.
And what's more, I'm fairly sure you agree with this. As I look over your own comments (both in the past, and in the present), that seems rather clear to me. We're here to build an encyclopedia. And while community-building is part of that, it's been shown again and again, that categories should be used very minimally for that. (With "collaboration" and "contribution" being the bywords of relevance.)
Categories are groupings for the sole purpose of navigation. They are lousy for references or explanations; they shouldn't be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices; and shouldn't be used as "feel good" groupings.
Do you disagree with any of the above? - jc37 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

2 different things

Jc, I understand why you closed that close, I understand that you have that point of view, and looking at my contribs you highlighted I can understand that a year ago I would probably have agreed with you. Now, I honestly don't care. Is this user category a problem? I don't care. Was the close correct, well, I've outlined my thoughts at the DRV. I know where you are trying to push this, but I have a fair idea of what will happen if we go down that route. The key for me is that impartially there wasn't much to choose between the two sides in that cfd. Above all else I will respect the right of people to argue their case and for consensus to form or not form. I just don't see any consensus in that debate. Any other discussion is secondary for me. There's a few cases at arbitration now where people don't seem to be respecting other people's opinions. I'm something of an eventualist, I take the view that we'll get their eventually. If we're talking about how the category was being used, it was nominated the same day it was deleted. No-one ever got a chance to see where it was going, if there was something worth saying in here. Blimey, even the Jimbo's beard categories lasted longer than this and they were trivial. As to categoriesd being for navigation, yes. In the article space. I'm not sure what they're for in the user space. I know I don't want to see a million categories on a user page, but I also know I don't want to see their complete absence. So I allow leeway. To be honest I stopped being vocal at CFD and UCFD when it started to standardise and the flexibility went out of the system. I believe in flexibility. Like our guidance says, we have to turn the other cheek, we have to keep our own biases in check and we allow established users more leeway. I hope that explains where I'm coming from. I understand what you did, I just don't think it's a fight worth fighting. Also, I think a couple of times you've said I've accused you of closing from a POV. Yes, I am. I don't think you should take offence at that though. All I am trying to say is that in my opinion, those were no-consensus closes. That's my opinion, my POV. You disagree. That's your opinion, or POV. I do not intend to mean anything other than that, and I don't wish you to believe I am besmirching your reputation. We are allowed to close at our discretion. We just have to do a lot of talking sometimes to get it to stick. Good luck in making it stick. I know why you want ti to stick. I'm just not so sure I agree it should have to be stuck. Hiding T 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okaaay : )
Thank you for explaining. I think from my last post, and your current one, we better understand each other. And yes, you really are allowed to change you mind on something. (That's part of what I was attempting to determine, if you had, or if something was being "missed".) There need not be agreement, but I sincerely try to make sure that there is at least mutual understanding.
"I know where you are trying to push this..." - I didn't/don't see myself "pushing" anything, but if it seemed that way to you, I apologise.
And in regards to POV, I said that it was looking like you possibly were (or that you "came close"), but I wasn't certain. I disagree with your characterisation of that and some other things, but it's not worth "arguing" about : )
(Oh, and my "reputation" is one of the least of my concerns. I'd be rather surprised if anyone besides a few at WP:CMC and WP:UCFD (and maybe a couple others) even know that such a Wikipedian as jc37 exists. But that's ok, because we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to win a popularity contest : ) - jc37 02:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, a sincere "thanks again", and I do hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 02:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Hiding/Sean Simmans

As per the afd the article has been userfied to User:Hiding/Sean Simmans, I also removed the afd tag and all catagories. Gnangarra 07:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Comics articles

Hello Hiding. A quick question: Why is it that some members of Category:Top-importance Comics articles are sorted by {{PAGENAME}} and some aren't? I can't figure it out. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

2¢... (sorry Hiding)
Some of them look like it's taking info from the Bio project header, which has a "listas" element.
Looking at the non-Comic headers...
  • Bio has an explicit variable for changing the default sort. All of the bios are looking at the page name, "listas" or not.
  • WPBooks has an embedded default sort (Seduction of the Innocent)
  • Science Fiction Project has a listas variable (Buck Rogers)
- J Greb (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I replied at GentlemanGhost's page, and you seem to have confirmed my theory. Thank you. Hiding T 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah... that makes sense. I had surmised that the Bio tag might be affecting the sort, but that didn't explain the non-Bio articles. I didn't realize that these other project tags also affect the sort. Very clever. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

UCFD closes

Please see this, where I've asked AM for more information. I'm growing increasingly concerned about a pattern I am seeing here, as I alluded to in my comment on UCFD:Wikipedians_against_notability ... I'd welcome your input as well in the appropriate place (if AM doesn't substantially improve the close rationale, to the point that I change my mind about whether it was a good close or not, I'll no doubt be taking UCFD:Wikipedians_against_censorship to DRV). I think, as a note, that you might want to get involved in some of these closes yourself... ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The community has a whole other section

The drv is shut, so I'll pick this up here. If you read WP:NOT, you'll note that it divides itself into two. Content and community. There are two different sections, always have been always will. You also mentioned something about double standards which I don't understand, since WP:CONSENSUS indicates double standards are allowed to exist. I'm distressed you talk about a pet category, because its almost like you're trying to apply pet standards. I'm not sure there is a communication issue here more than you're simply ignoring what doesn't fit into your framework, position or whatever it is you think you're building. Personally, if enough people mention that something might not be a good idea I tend to try and listen. Looks like there's quite a cabal growing at UCFD though. All the best, Hiding T 11:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

K, I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that userspace wasn't part of Wikipedia. My apologies.
"pet" - I actually wasn't talking about you, since (I thought) we had already discussed your perspective. It was just surprising to me that the self-same people who would vote to delete these types of categories, were now arguing for this one. Looked/Looks too much of a double standard to me.
And since when have you ever known me to not enjoin discussion? : ) - jc37 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Where do you keep your archives of this page? I just want to look for some previous discussion. Hiding T 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Except for a few exceptions, typically I unify discussion, either on my talk page, or (more commonly) the talk page of whomever initially commented/asked a question. Always seemed more polite, to me. That said, I archived my talk page to User talk:Jc37/Archive/01 upon becoming an admin.
Was there something in particular I could help you find? - jc37 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaded

I'm sorry if I appear jaded to you. From my perspective it appears to be experience, but I'm willing to concede that I could be wrong. Hiding T 13:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I wasn't speaking about you, and actually in this case, wasn't even talking about anyone in that discussion, or even anyone in particular. I was actually remembering a discussion I had with you about how you and I weren't much for WP:RBI. (As I think about it now, it was in relation to Tony Sideaway being concerned that asgardian didn't have much of a block log.) - jc37 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

In reading the above, it seems to me that somewhere along the way your feelings were hurt in all of this. If so, I sincerely apologise.

I know that I was surprised (I think I previously used the word "speechless") at first by your comments, but we've since spoken about them, and I had thought we had resolved them? (For the most part, it's just a difference of opinion, I think - and last I checked, nothing wrong with that?)

So now I'm wondering what's going on now? - jc37 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing people act in the face of a lot of very important principles on Wikipedia. Regarding your talk page archives, I can't recall the exact thing, so I guess I'll go digging. As to double standards, they are encouraged on Wikipedia. And debate is good so long as everyone debates to a common solution rather than a protection of their position. Hiding T 14:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm not seeing what your seeing. And double standards are encouraged? Are we defining the terms the same way? And (unfortunately) it's been my experience that many editors tend to argue for their own "creation" or for something in which they've personally identified, and typically leave NPOV (the search for a common solution) at the door.
Anyway, I welcome your thoughts, though atm (once again) I'm confused. Though this time, I want to wait for your clarification before trying to presume your meaning. - jc37 14:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Double standards

I guess I'm not seeing what your seeing. And double standards are encouraged? Are we defining the terms the same way? And (unfortunately) it's been my experience that many editors tend to argue for their own "creation" or for something in which they've personally identified, and typically leave NPOV (the search for a common solution) at the door.
  • I wouldn't expect a creator to be anything other than biased, but we're in user space here so we can check NPOV at the door. We allow double standards because we allow each thing to be judged on its merits and we allow community consensus to decide what is included. This means that by and large we have double standards, and they are welcome, because the improvement of the encyclopedia is placed as more important than anything else, and the community decides what improves the encyclopedia. Have a read of WP:CONSENSUS, note that it says that consensus can change, indeed that "Wikipedia's decisions are ever-changing", that "it is often difficult to reach a single conclusion"and that "If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over." If you take these points together, you can see that there are instances where we do not have a particular consensus happening over and over, that decisions can fluctuate, conclusions can vary and that therefore double standards do exist.
  • I'd also want to point you to the whole section at WP:CONSENSUS entitled consensus can change. Consider what has happened in the past and is happening now at UCFD and what just happened in the DRV with this: "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." Just food for thought. I don't care over much either way. As to our usages of double standards, I think you mean hypocrisy. I've always held my hands up to being a hypocrite, it saves time.
  • I tend to at least try WP:AGF until shown otherwise, regardless of what space we're dealing with. (Though as an aside, as I read your comments, they remind me of something I was reading about which is done on User:Fred Bauder's wiki - Wikinfo:Sympathetic point of view. Have you heard of it already?)
  • I'm a big fan of WP:CCC. (I've had it as a link on my userpage quite a while.) But while I see how you arrived at your destination, I disagree with the idea of calling consensus changing a "double standard". And "hypocrisy" is a polemic word, and I sincerely doubt I would have used it. Just as Consensus can change, Wikipedians can adapt and change as well. That doesn't make them "hypocrits", that just makes them adaptable and open-minded. - jc37 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

k

Well, wow. I guess that's the comment that ends the discussion. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Shrugs. Hope you have a better day. - jc37 01:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're still talking to me

I figure I at least have the right to defend myself, and I hope I've earnt enough that you'll listen as well.

My comments at Lar's talk page. I figure it's the word cabal that is annoying you, since I've made the same complaint a couple of times the last week without chucking that word in. Cabals operate everywhere, every little page has a little cabal. That's why we have no cabals as a policy on Wikipedia, it's so that decisions are always open to re-evaluation. It's not because we don't have cabals. It's because we don't let it bother us, we let the system handle it eventually. I don't have the time to keep people at UCFD honest, and you can see Black Falcon's talk page and After Midnight's comments to me at the DRV for how I arrive at that conclusion, but I have trust that the wiki process will eventually solve the problem. Either your ends will justify your means, or they won't. But like you say, I'm entitled to my opinion. I got the impression a lot earlier that you weren't really listening to it, but that's not really that important and I just toss it out there. On some level we're talking past each other. I don't have the luck of having this discussion in a pub where the nuances are easier to make understood. What else. Use of the word hypocrite. You didn't use it, no, but I thought that's what you meant when you were referring to double standards. What I meant, and what I hoped to show through quoting all that policy at you, was that sometimes Wikipedia makes decision a on x, and yet conflicting decision b on y. Therefore double standards exist, are part of the process and are, well not encouraged but recognised and considered just one of those things. I thought the word hypocritical was more appropriate, but I guess the way I've been brought up to use it isn't perhaps the way it's defined, or perhaps that I recognise it in myself and so I'm not afraid of it. Being a hypocrite certainly doesn't preclude being open to change, at least not as far as I can see. I have no idea what you were pointing me to Fred's wiki-info for, perhaps you could care to clarify. As far as I know, the wiki-info sympathetic POV is again an article space construct, contrasting to the NPOV of Wikipedia's article space, so I'm at odds over how it applies to our discussion of user categories, which by definition exist in user space. Unless part of the whole communication breakdown is that you think NPOV applies everywhere, even in discussions. If you're pointing me to AGF because I said I wouldn't expect a creator to be anything other than biased, thanks, but I'll pass. I guess I have a very different understanding of that policy as well. My interpretation is that we always assume that whatever people do, they do because they want to make Wikipedia better. We don't always assume that people perform every single action with the purest of motives, but that their motives are guiding them to make Wikipedia better. It doesn't matter to me that a creator of a category or whatever has a bias, and I don't violate WP:AGF by saying, oh, you created this, so you'll have that opinion. I violate AGF when I say, oh you did that just to wind people up or ... Anyway, all the best. I've really pissed you off here at some point, and it wasn't really my intent. I think Iron Gargoyle made a lot of the points I was attempting a lot better than I could. Maybe I'm fucking it all up because I actually respect your opinion. Who can say. Hiding T 10:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, and the debate I was looking for on your talk page was one a long time ago about how three people shouldn't be able to make decisions somewhere and then try and block further discussion. It was brought to mind because of the comments at the DRV about how the others at UCFD were agreeing with the close. Look, maybe part of the trouble here is that yes, I think I'm seeing something here that I don't agree with. I think I'm seeing at UCFD an attempt to over-ride the consensus formed within debates. Maybe my opinions have changed, but I don't think that should happen. Maybe it's not the case anymore, but it used to be that only policies, specifically WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR could trump a consensus at a deletion debate. That's what our policies still tell us. But I already went through a load of deletion debates with Black Falcon, and pointed out the danger of deleting a category containing 600 users based on a debate involving two people. That didn't seem that worrying to Black Falcon. I guess I thought it would bother you slightly more, based on things you've said before. And at the minute, you're giving the impression to me that it doesn't bother you. Hiding T 10:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still talking to you. I just felt in seeing your comments that I had run against a brick wall of misconception. There is more than a bit in your comments above that I disagree with, including how you felt I intended some of the links, but I think I'll chalk that up to emotions running a bit high.

For example, TINC has always been something I thought you and I agreed on. (Though I am dismayed at it's merger from its own page, I may be BOLD and undo that in the near future.)

And, I'd like to think that I'm not stupid or blind. But I still prefer to WP:AGF, and give someone the benefit of the doubt, until evidence is shown otherwise. That last clause is a key part for me.

But anyway, it seems to me from the above, the best way to answer would be to let you know what my opinions of UCFD are (something which, for the most part, I typically don't do). It will take some typing, and I need to go shortly, so I'm going to postpone for later, but it'll be forthcoming. - jc37 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on the last part. WP:BEANS. (Hard to explain without actually explaining.) I think Wikipedia has enough Wikilawyering/contention without me contributing fodder for more. (And no I don't mean you, I'm just attempting to be aware that perhaps more than just you or I may read this page, or this page's history - something I should probably stay aware of more often : )
As for UCFD, from everything I've seen so far, it would seem that creating a "guidelines" page would be a positive "next step", to hopefully reduce confusion, and maybe even prevent at least some future communication breakdowns, such as this one. You are, of course, welcome to join in on such a discussion. - jc37 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

While it's not unprecedented, I just wanted to let you know that you closed a relisted debate 2 days after its relisting (rather than the typical 5). - jc37 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also

Forgot about the whole close of the relisted debate. For future reference, we are still allowed to close debates early, aren't we? Hiding T 10:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes... but it should be done carefully. As I think you know, it often can cause more disruption closing early, than just waiting out the additional days. (I've been there myself, as you also know : ) - jc37 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV for UCFD

I find myself wanting to open some DRVs but {{newdelrev}} does not seem to be the right template since it points to AfD. Do you know the template to use? That template is not in the usual template nav categories, so I cannot figure out what other ones might apply. Thanks! You can reply here, I'll watch. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, jc37 hooked me up. I guess I should be nicer to him ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You should. Jc37 is a wikipedian I respect and admire. Hiding T 09:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right. All I can say is... These guys are getting the best of me, unfortunately. Not because they mean to, just because I'm so frustrated at what I've perceived to be happening there at UCFD... and it's not even like it's evil intent or anything, I just don't think they see the insularity that's arisen the way I do. Or maybe I'm all wet and it's completely not the case that the same 3 or 4 people participate and get predictable outcomes. ++Lar: t/c 12:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
See {{NewdelrevUCFD}} ... it's not a full blown "works for all types of XfD discussions" template, but it shows the way, at least a bit. It handles archived and unarchived discussions (but not ones that are in the working area at the time)... by use of an optional archiveYearMonth= parm (taking, for example "December_2007"). Comments welcomed before I publicise it more widely... it also needs to be categorised :). ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

nowt to see here

I believe that is your usual edit summary in these cases. : )

To whit: [61]

--GentlemanGhost (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Hey, could you move a page for me? I'd do it myself, but I created a redirect page where the article ought to go before it occurred to me they should be the other way around. I created on article about the story The Reign of the Superman and did a lot of work on it before I came across a source that called it The Reign of the Super-Man. Although those spelling it Superman outnumber those that spell it Super-Man, I came to realize that Super-Man was actually how Siegel spelled it, so I need to move the article at The Reign of the Superman to The Reign of the Super-Man, and turn the former into the redirect page. (Yeah, yeah, I wouldn't have to ask anybody to do this if I'd just accepted an admin nomination back in October.) I believe this can be taken care of without having to go through AfR at this point in the article's history, can't it? Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done : ) - jc37 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Steve I want to have your babies 124.183.248.172 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The first Barnstar ever given by BarnStarbot (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hiding/Archive_2007&oldid=1160890667"