User:Who/Discussion log/June 2005

GNAA
with Ta bu shi da yu
 * No offense, but when an article is placed on VfD three times, and each time it was not deleted, I think you should not resubmit the article to VfD. Noone forced any of the editors to vote support. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 02:55 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments on the talk page of the GNAA Vfd. I would prefer them to stay on that discussion page, as you stated "no offense", but then go on to talk about what you stated on the discussion. I did take the time to read the entire Vfd, I also was brought it up as a discussion on the topic and not a new Vfd. I stated my reasoning in a civilized manner, and even clarified on not suggesting that the prior three were invalid. I therefore do not appreciate the tone you seemed to have both on that discussion page and my talk page. If you feel strongly about this topic, I do not intend to desuade your thoughts on it what so ever, but give me the benefit of the doubt, that I have reviewed all the material, and want to further dicuss the process. If myself, or any other Wikipedian, as I stated on the discussion page,  wants to discuss the process or the policy of Wikipedia, it should not be frowned upon, much less "barked at", as I feel you did on my talk page. I do not mean any disrespect, and only want to point out the fact that I wish to have a discussion on the previous Vfd's in a civil manner.  Thank you.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Apologies
I do owe you an apology for seeming to bark at you. That was never my intent. I understand that you want to discuss this and I may have been too quick to judge: I myself did not follow the policy I quote most often: Assume good faith. I'm sorry you bore the brunt of this! I also wasn't talking as an admin... I was talking as a normal Wikipedian who saw each of the three (or is it four?) attempts at removing that article. That is why I got upset!

I do hope you can accept my apologies and, please, continue discussing the VfD. I have no problem with discussing it, but would hope that you understand that I believe submitting the article to VfD again would only be disruptive. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 04:46 (UTC)


 * Actually I fealt really bad about replying, to be quite honest, I was about to ignore it when I remembered you were an administrator, this unfortunately bothered me a bit, as a normal user I would have just assumed they didnt understand the entire thing. I especially hope that my comments were not to harsh. Although, being an admin, I would have not expected it, at the same time, the fact that you are, you deal with a lot of users who do not take the time to examine or understand topics. I wanted to mostly just emphacize my point that I wanted to discuss everything, and not "bite back" I hope that if I did offend,that you also accept my appology.  I understand yours and other feelings on this matter, and wish to further the discussion and perception of it.  (hopefully not confusing, a bit tired)  Thanks.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  30 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)

John Byrne
with N. Caligon
 * Removed neutrality/accuracy dispute tag. Editor who unilaterally added tag has failed to participate in followup N. Caligon
 * Actually, I have been reviewing edits and discussions. I have seen no reason for any more intervention, for the most part, as I am not always here. I put in WP:RFC and requested the page to be unprotected and moved, set out a new discussion with some notes for editors. I did not add the tag, and truly fealt that amongst yourselves (after the page unprotection) you would have had a reasonable amount of time to settle disputes and form a repertoire amongst one another, and decide if it was still under dispute.  If you still feel that you need some assistance handling vandalism, POV, or unattributed edits, I would be glad to assist, or you can also see WP:RFC for unsettled disputes.  I hope that was of some help.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  29 June 2005 16:43 (UTC)


 * Hmm, confusing, unless you meant "who" as a generic term and not particulary me User:Who. :) .  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  29 June 2005 16:44 (UTC)
 * Didn't intend to refer to you; referred to an anonymous user who posted a laundry list of (mostly spurious) objections, added the tag, and hasn't been heard from since that day last week. The page will likely stay contentious (not as contentious as, say, the Rob Liefeld page, since Liefeld's loyalists will defend drawing a right foot at the end of a left leg as "artistic vision") but almost all of the editors are trying to reach consensus right now. N. Caligon 29 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)
 * Thats good to hear, sorry for the mixup, I didnt even think about it until I hit save.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Rv removal Edits of Category:Causes célèbres
with Mirror Vax
 * This is a consensus vote to remove this category. DO NOT rv my edits to remove this category. See Categories to be removed.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  28 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)


 * A so-called consensus (i.e. a handful of idiots) does not give you the right to destroy the work of dozens of Wikipedians, few (if any) of which were consulted in advance. If you were recategorizing the articles, that would be a different matter. But you are acting like a vandal. Mirror Vax 28 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)
 * Hardly. CfD is the established procedure, and a failed attempt was even made on Votes for undeletion to prevent the deletion of the category.  There is no further process due, and the category shall be removed.  Interfering with this is vandalism and will be sanctioned appropriately.  Postdlf 28 June 2005 23:41 (UTC)
 * I will, as always, make edits that I believe improve Wikipedia. You may do the same. Wikipedia is not about "process", it is about writing an encyclopedia. Please re-familarize yourself with WP:NOT. Mirror Vax 28 June 2005 23:48 (UTC)


 * Wantonly deleting information from 100+ articles with absolutely no effort made to improve them is similar to vandalism. Recategorizing articles is fine. But what you did is very wrong. Mirror Vax 29 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)
 * My recategorization was the result of the Cfd, as stated above. I performed a very arduous task, not much different than what a bot would perform, to recategorize the articles. There is not time to improve each article when doing such a large category, as the task must be completed.  However, you do not know how I edit articles, nor the lengths I go through to ensure the articles I edit, get fair attention.  I routinely go back through the articles I have edited to fix little problems I seen while doing such a task, such as adding a category if there was only the one I removed. I go through article and user histories to find out why one change or another was done.  Calling me a vandal, or insinuating that I am one, is still a personal attack, your personal feelings on the decision to delete the category, should be brought up on the Cfd, during the allotted time, and NOT on a users talk page.  Especially after you were informed not to Rv edits by the user and others, pertaining to a consensus of a Cfd, not just my own personal reasoning.  I no longer wish to participate in this discussion with you, as I feel it is resolved, and the category removed. I know exactly what my edits were and the purpose of doing them. If you have any more comments on this, than I suggest an WP:RFC, as it was unruly and unnecessary to leave such a note on my talk page to begin with. Thank you.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  29 June 2005 06:07 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres
with Kbdank71
 * I forgot to thank you for the help in doing this and other CfD moves. I appreciate the help.  --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)
 * Not a prob, I get some small enjoyment out of categorizing things, odd I know. :) Just let me know if you need any other help. Thanks for your comment. <> Who ? &iquest; ?  29 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Difficult and Dismal Tennessee
with AYArktos
 * Re-add

See maps: and   They're on the map, not everything can be found on google. <> Who ? &iquest; ? 28 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Thank you - and now I have learned also how to search for obscure place names. I did try many permutations including written sources. I am sceptical of contributions of red links that are not verifiable by a Google search and it would be of course too easy to insert an imaginary place into this list.--AYArktos 28 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)
 * Not a prob, I dont like the redlinks as much either, but I tend to leave them, hoping for future expansion. I'm really adiment about google searches though, as there are quite a few obscure items not easily found anywhere.  Too many wikipedians depend completely on google.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  28 June 2005 04:57 (UTC)

voice actor template
with Brian Kendig
 * I just wanted to let you know of my proposal for a standarized voice actor template on Template messages talk. If you have any comments and/or suggestions, after you see the proposal, they would be appreciated.  Thank you.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  21:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Chicagoans
with Instantnood
 * (use )
 * Thanks for the info and fix, I wish I would have known about that template to begin with, isnt the first time I added multiple cats.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  16:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome. :-) &mdash; Instantnood 16:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's sad that this template is now on TFD. &mdash; Instantnood 17:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool... You've discovered that already. :-D &mdash; Instantnood 17:35, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * And I'm glad I did, would hate to lose it now, since its like the 3rd time I've done umbrella nominations without it. And I have to start using that little "reply" link you used, good idea. <> Who ? &iquest; ?  17:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:New Orleanians
with Infrogmation
 * Thanks for that fix, when I added it to the Tfd, I noticed I had 2 chicagoan's, didn't think of checking the actual category. Thanks.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  00:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cfr vote on Category:Chicagoans
with Anthony
 * Hi, just wanted to let you know that I added the remaining sub-cats to this Cfr. Just in case you want to examine, and then keep or change your vote. Here is the new listing: Cfd listing  Thanks.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  05:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Donald Pleasence
with Heron
 * Hi Who, I just removed the "wikify" tag from Donald Pleasence before noticing that you had added it only a few hours before. Still, I can't see what is wrong with the article. If you'd care to explain the problem to me then I will either try to fix it or replace the tag. Thanks. --Heron 21:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, yea sorry about that, I was gonna leave a note and forgot, I was caught up with working on Cfd's. I think the filmography should be wikified, I think there are probably more of them with articles, than listed.  I would have done it, but been seriously busy..  Thanks.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  22:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removal of Upper Dicker
Dieter Simon and Mel Etitis
 * On List of interesting or unusual place names, I do not understand the reasoning behind the removal of this name "Upper Dicker", as there is clearly a place named this.. . I did not enter them, but see reverts for other names anons have added, that were of existant places. There was no discussion on some of these on the talk page, and seems like a very unfair and/or bias rv practice. I would completely understand if the place did not exist, but as far as any of them being offensive, its not like the anon named the location, and its just a name. As far as the name not seemingy to be funny, there are plenty of places that are just closely related to other words and/or meanings, which are included; a few examples of such: (Assawoman, Virginia; Belchertown, Massachusetts; Brest, France; Cattewater, Devon, England) In each of those examples, the names are just close spellings and are just inferred as humorous.  To disclude "Upper Dicker" just because you personally do not find it funny, is not a valid reason, and more on the point of discouraging other anons from participating. If at the very least, I think any rv for these reasons should be placed on the talk page of the article, other editors should not have to track down personal reasons on individual talk pages. I do not mean to be offensive or demeaning.  Thanks.
 * cc:User talk:Dieter Simon
 * <> Who ? &iquest; ? 01:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for replying. It's not clear to me why this is either interesting or unusual, but I removed it because it was given as "Upper Dicker Village, South Easte England", which was clearly wrong, being vague and misspelt. Mel Etitis 
 * I just assumed it was a play on words, as in penis/dick, to be blunt, same as Assawoman. I think it would be helpful, in the future, to at least put the reason on the talk page, or in the comments of the edit, just with this particular article. As it is an unusual list to begin with.  Thanks again.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  08:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I originally put it back, thinking it should be there. However, on second thoughts, I agree with Mel, what is so special about the name?. It doesn't look very unusual or interesting. Can you tell us of any special meaning we might have missed? On removing the entry, I mentioned to Mel that dicker is an archaic word meaning bargain, but it also means to hesitate, to dither. In German it means an obese man. Would that be generally understood by anyone looking at it? If you have reason for it to be memorable in some way or other, or you can give it a meaning that would render it amusing, I would gladly be the first one to put it back.


 * The village, Upper Dicker, certainly exists as well as its sister village Lower Dicker, both being in the county of East Sussex. The only ironic thing is that, looking at the map, Lower Dicker is to the north of Upper Dicker, good job we don't interpret the map as being "up" or "down", eh? (-).


 * There is no bias against newbies, by the way, I only feel that a name should catch the eye for an obvious reason in order to be in a list of "unusual" or "interesting" names. Dieter Simon 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, didnt mean to imply there was a potential bias against newbies/anons, more of a discouragement of adding if there isnt a clear reason given on the edit summary or talk page. As for an obvious reason, I guess I can agree on that, I just thought "dicker" was an obvious word play on "penis" and/or "dick". I had read your reasons on the user talk pages, just thought it should have been listed on the article talk page for clarification purposes, as some users may not know to check the user talk pages.  Thanks for the reply.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  22:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duck Tales episodes
with Nintendo Maximus
 * Wow, thanks for the huge list of synopsis you provided. I was afraid it would never get populated, as I only had the one title to go from originally. Great work, thanks again.    <> Who ? &iquest; ?  19:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of DuckTales episodes Hi again, just wanted to let you know, rather than making a redirect to a "new" page of an existing article, use the Move tab, at the top of the page. This way the articles history and talk pages accompany the article, and it automatically creates a redirect to the new page from the old article. As it is now, we have two pages, the old one with history, and your new one. I see no problem with the "move" other than that. I'm going to tag the new page for speedy deletion, so that the old page can be properly moved to its location. Thanks for all the other work you have done so far. <> Who ? &iquest; ? 29 June 2005 09:54 (UTC)
 * Actually I just posted it for moving, so it will be taken care of shortly. You can do this here Requested moves, if you ever need to.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  29 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Mega Man characters
with Bryan
 * That was my mistake, of depopulating. I was indirectly informed awhile back that the category discussions were not so much a vote as a discussion, as I remarked on a similiar situation. It seemed it wasn't a harmful or rash move to depopulate and and recat, until after I was done, and reconsidered my decision to do so. I was awaiting the outcome, as some of the obvious cat entries have little discussion, and just need to be depopulated. I was gone all day, and came back to even more dismay to see the consensus was for keeping. I should have at leasted researched, what seemed at the time a logical choice. I was planning on reversing my edits after seeing the current discussion. I admit it was premature and have to be more considerate in the future.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  04:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about it, Wikipedia's got lots and lots of little "rules" like this that one picks up over time and more often than not one learns them by breaking them and having someone point them out like this. I don't know all of them myself, I generally only pick up the stuff relevant to the areas I frequent. Bryan 06:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles needing images
with Sebastian
 * Hi, I hope I did not seem to crast in any of my responses. We were all just leaning on the standardization of the category names already in use in Category:Wikipedia requests. Other than that there wouldn't be much reason to change Articles needing images, especially if a lot of articles were cat'd there, but luckily they are only there by means of template. So renaming would only make it look better. ;) Thanks for the input.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  01:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries! All your replies were completely factual; I have no problem whatsoever with such replies. I only bowed out because I realized that the issue was more complicated than I had originally assumed, and I don't have enough experience to cast an authoritative vote. After your explanation here I tend to agree. I also see another argument in favour of your proposed name: "requested" is more accurate than "needing". &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 23:38, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your nice message. Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply. In short: No worries! &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 16:42, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

DuctapeDaredevil
with Ductape
 * DuctapeDaredevil, ok, now I'm confused. You created this, or you just marked it Vfd? Either way, if you or the author, can provide some notable works, it would probably be a good author article, as long as it was cleaned up.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  21:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't write it, and I have no notable works. I can barely get more reviews than I have chapters.   DuctapeDaredevil 02:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I just wanted to comment on your reply on the Vfd.
 * I'm not telling you my real name. DuctapeDaredevil 23:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As you stated above, you didn't feel you had any notable works to list. The only reason I had made that comment, for historical reference, it's better to have the real name of the author, unless they only use their pseudoname in publishing. I personally use both, I have some published works under my real name and my pseudo. Please do not take it as an insult, or me snooping for your personal info. Hope you get your stuff published someday, good luck in your writing.  <> Who ? &iquest; ?  02:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't take it as anything. I just commented.  DuctapeDaredevil 03:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reqimage
with ALoan
 * I see that you coffee rolled the template, I originally couldn't get the image to align properly. Although I proposed adding the image to the coffe-rolled version, I also proposed the new version, and to move it off of the talk page. There was no opposition and some support for this. I intended for it to be a bit bolder and eye catching, however I did think its size could be downgraded. Photographs are requested a little more than standard pictures, however it would work for both. Here are my proposal pages 1, 2, 3. I also advertised it on Category:Articles needing images, until I placed it in use.  Please let me know your thoughts on this, as it was not just a hasty design change,  as I proposed the idea for more than 2 weeks.  Thank you.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  16:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry - didn't realise that you had changed the text too - feel free to edit away. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Who Userpage
with Rick
 * Wow, I guess I should put my own userpage on my watchlist, just figured "Why should i?". Well, now I know, thanks for the catch, I had no idea it happened. Thanks
 * <>Who 07:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * one of the advantages of being an admin
 * Good to know for the possible future, however I need to learn more about all of the innerworkings of wiki and create better articles before I request adminship. ;) Who ? &iquest; ?  00:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's one of the advantages of being an admin -- you can protect your User page so that only you (and other admins) can edit it. RickK 23:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat
with Noel
 * Hi, I was updating a voice actors page, and this animated was listed, I double checked with imdb and it was actually titled "The Twisted Adventures of Felix the Cat", so I moved the page, and fixed all the wiki links, except for the one on your user page. Just thought I would drop you a note to let you know.
 * <>Who 20:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was pretty sure I remembered it as the "adventures", I just doubled checked with IMDB. The main hits I got for "tales" was in VHS/DVD release. I looked at a few other sources (dont have them handy atm) and they all showed "adventures" for the series. I will look more into it if you like, as long as its correctly listed I dont mind it being either one.
 * Who ? &iquest; ? 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately, after further review, although the majority of my sources, and memory, referred to it as "Adventures" the official offical felix site has it listed as "Tales". Unless for some odd reason they changed it over the years. Every reliable source I could find showed it as Adventures. I should have proposed the move, I was in a bit of a hurry working on something else at the time, still have a lot to get used to on wiki. I am not an admin, so I believe it would be in the best interest of wiki to revert it, if you aren't opposed. Any thoughts? <> Who ? &iquest; ?  23:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that IMDB didn't get it wrong? I note that both the TV episode list fan page, as well as the only online review IMDB has listed, both call it "Twisted Tales". Not only that, if you look at the cover art at both IMDB and the review page, the cover art gives the title as "Twisted Tales"! (I did check, and all the episodes listed on the thing listed on the review page are from the 95-96 season.) Now, perhaps the "Twisted Tales" variant was selected for the video re-release, and it's the cover art for that which we are seeing, but I would certainly want to make sure. (I'm not a Felix fan, I just did the article when it was listed on RfD.) Noel (talk) 14:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have to be in any hurry to act; there's a redirect at the alternative title, so anyone looking up (or linking to) "Twisted Tales" is going to find the article. I'd rather take our time and get the definitive data. Have you tried e.g. contacting Film Roman and seeing what they say? Given all the stuff you've found, I can easily believe that both have been officially used; e.g. maybe it was "Adventures" back when it was on first-run TV, and "Tales" for the video re-release? (I'll copy the relevant posts to the article Talk: page, maybe someone else can help.) Noel (talk) 23:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Title problems
Just for the record, the series was reviewed in various animation magazines at the time as "The Twisted Tales". The tapes I had of the series used the title, not just the commercial ones, the *theme song* included the repeated line "Twisted tales of Felix the cat," and the book The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons by Jeff Lenburg, 1998 edition, included that title. I normally don't use Lenburg as a source, as he is nootriously sloppy in much of his research, but in this case he's correct. It wouldn't be the first time that IMdb had something wrong and countless websites based the info off of IMDb and/or fuzzy memories. Go to Google groups and look at old posts in places like rec.arts.animation, which was active when the series premiered in 1995. It uses the "Tales" title. (I still need to correct the error on the Voicechasers site). Aleal 29 June 2005 05:15 (UTC)

As a final note, the title with "Adventures" does show up in occasionally more reliable sources, such as the resume of actor Pat Fraley, who worked on the series. So it's quite possible that the first was the working title when the show was in production (Lenburg claims it was to have been called "The New Adventures of Felix the Cat") and wasn't changed until it premiered. Okay, one more bit of evidence. From the resume of artist Milton Knight, who directed two episodes of the series: http://www.miltonknight.net/animation.html#felix In case more proof is needed, he might be worth contacting (I've e-mailed him before re other animation matters, and he seemed quite friendly). Aleal 29 June 2005 05:29 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your response and effort. I had emailed Film Roman staff awhile back, inquiring about the title change(s), and what it was originally. I have unfortunately not received a reply as of yet. As I told Noel, I did not just use IMDB, as I know they can be unreliable, and although the official felix site had it as "Tales", it may have been created by staff that did not know the appropriate history or naming.  If you find out anymore information, it would be greatly appreciated, as I have no personal preference on the article title, except that of a correct one.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  29 June 2005 06:31 (UTC)