User talk:Before My Ken/archives 5 Jul 2008

ARCHIVE PAGE 5: JULY 2008

Outside the box
You really have to start looking at articles as a whole, and not close your mind to what I'm doing. I crafted The Paradine Case as an entire article, with images laid out to be balanced, and information presented in a coherent manner. The sections aren't Tinker Toys you can take apart and resequence any which way, they make sense and work well the way I've put them, because I wrote them to be that way. When you move them around in slavish adherence to the MoS (which, I reiterate one more time, is a guideline and not sacred dogma), you make the article be not as good as it was. Similarly, look at what things like a few italics do in the infobox, they help to set off the parenthetical information from the main entries that they are modifying, making it easier for the eye to see what's important, and what's ancillary. Just because it isn't in the MoS doesn't mean it can't happen, and in this case it really helps the box to appear to be less crowded. Similarly, when a country is mentioned in a film article it's much better to link to the article about that country's cinema, instead of the general article about the country. That's a much more pertinent and helpful link for the reader, who we're here to serve. I think you need to relax just a bit about this stuff, and not be quite so rigid about things, if you can. Please trust that I'm not out to hurt anything -- you can clearly see that my aim is to improve the articles I work on, and I think there's little doubt that this is a significant improvement on this. Cheers! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. You want to spell out "minutes", it's fine with me – but, again, it's really nothing to get riled up about.


 * Responding to your message on my talk page, which is now archived here I'm always open to discussion, but MoS isn't a policy, it's a guideline, as it says quite clearly in numerous places. I don't ignore it, but I sometimes find that, for specific purposes, there are better ways to do things, that make articles easier to read and use and therefore better for the reader.  That really should be our overriding goal, and we should all use our abilities to the maximum to achieve it.  That's means not blindly following pre-set "rules", but being thoughtful and working to get the best possible result. Anyway, I look forward to what you've got to say. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you'll read this – since you don't seem to have time to answer me (but time enough to hit the "undo" button, I notice – but please allow me to explain the layout of the article for The Paradine Case There's a scheme to the presentation. First, there's a brief introduction to the topic, giving the most important information (the lede paragraph), and this is partnered with the infobox, which gives other pertinent information is a quickly accessible form.  Next, if there's any background to give, we can give it, unless it's already been integrated into the lede.  Paradine doesn't need that, so we proceed to telling the reader the story of the film ("Plot"), which is the first part of the section of the article describing the film.  Here we give all the pertinent information about the film itself: the cast, the songs (if there are any), any other specific or unusual information the needs to be presented. Now that we've adequately described the thing we're discussing, we move on to telling how it was made ("production" and any necessary related sections), when and how it was released (either in a separate section or combined as convenient into one of the other sections), what the reception to it was (both critically and financially), any awards it received and the cultural impact of the film (if any).  Having now gone into the making and presenting of the film, if there is analysis to give, that should come next (the cultural impact part acts as a bridge between the two, and can be considered to be part of this section if you like).  Finally we wrap up with See also, references (notes and bibliography), and external links, followed by the bottom of the article: stubs, navboxes and categories. So I hope you see that there is a logic to this presentation, which is why, in most cases, I prefer that the cast section be up top, as part of our overall description of the film, rather than at the bottom, when we're describing what's behind the film.  Not only that, but cast information is a very large part of what people are looking for when they look up a film -- that's why IMDB has it on their front page, TCM puts the main cast there, and AMG has the button to go to the cast front and center on the page where it can be easily seen. People associated films with the actors in it, and the thing that most people want to know about a film is "who's in it?"  By having our cast section farther up the article, we make it that much easier for them to answer their question. so, there's my reasoning.  I think it would be best, considering the great deal of work I did to expand the article for The Paradine Case, adding images, production information, and other stuff throughout the article, that you give my choice of layout a chance.  I really have thought it out, and I've written the information in such a way that the presentation makes sense.  Not only that, but the placement and size of photographs takes into account the overall layout of the piece. I appreciate your taking the time to read this, and I'm open to your comments.  Perhaps there is some compromise solution we can come up with? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So you won't talk to me, won't respond to my messages, but you did run to User:Silk Tork and whine, just as you did the last time we had a dispute. How... well, I'm sorry, I suppose you'll bring up up on some kind of charges, but "childish" is really the only word I can think of.  You can't face up to others you're in conflict with like an adult, instead you tweak others to do it for you.  Sheesh. Anyway, you win. I don't have the energy to bother with you anymore.  I'll tell you what: why don't you send me a list of articles that you consider to be yours, and I'll just stay away from them -- you know, a "No Innovation Zone". Other than that, since you obviously don't feel the need to talk, you needn't bother to respond or communicate with me in the future. Enjoy your triumph! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you would not post to my talk page again. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Silky
How have you been.....check out my talk page....that person is back...editing...again...contrary to policy... I"m thinking of calling it quits...too busy at work....and ...well whatever... My best Luigibob (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you knew that Luigibob and I were in conflict about The Paradine Case. You knew that I've been trying to get him to discuss it, and your response is to go to the article in question and just revert my edits, without any discussion?  My impression from our previous interchange was that you were a reasonable person with whom a discussion can be had - was I wrong in that evaluation? In any event, go ahead and revert me again, I'm just giving up.  I worked pretty hard to expand that article, and make it better, but it's not a film that's particularly dear to my heart, and I don't not infinite amounts of energy to expend on beating my head against brick walls.  I do wish you folks didn't see the need to walk in lockstep with the sacred MoS quite so much, and were willing to give a serious look to things which might, just might, be better. But... so it goes. Since you didn't see the need for discussion before, there's really no need for it now, either, so you needn't bother to reply.  But, also, please don't come presenting yourself to me again as an honest broker willing to mediate in a dispute, because that's clearly not the case. Ciao. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have restored my edits. If you wish to talk about it then I'm willing to listen.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you would not post to my talk page again. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Canada Day and more
Hey buddy. Happy belated Canada Day...I was made aware of it by an old girlfriend of mine, who now lives in Ottawa. On another matter, I had another distasteful run-in with you can probably guess who. Me, I just try to follow policy --MOS:FILM-- and try keep the film articles I work on as uniform as possible. My contributions to Wiki has been limited these days by my hectic work schedule. Check out my talk page, history section to be specific, because I deleted the ugly rhetoric. Me, I tried to be civil. Never wrote a personal attack, other than to say "follow Wiki policy." I trust you are well.... Oh yes, the articles in question were: The Hitch-Hiker & The Paradine Case. Level-headed SilkTork came in and took care of what I thought were incorrect edits. My best --  ♦ Luigibob ♦  "Talk to Luigi!" 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And here I thought I was being paranoid when I had the feeling that people were talking about me behind my back!! It's always good to have my judgment confirmed! Careful with your rhetoric, though, referring to another editor with the expression "kill the beast" just might be subject to misinterpretation, and you could get a visit from the Politeness Police, who value civility much more highly than they do competence. (grin)  Best, Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, how is working on two film articles, both of which I had worked on before, "expanding my horizons"?  My horizons are what they have always been, and my goals have been the same from edit #1: to improve Wikipedia, to help make it into the best first-choice source of information on the Net, and not to allow the closed-mindedness of lock-step editors prevent the project from evolving, growing, and improving.


 * "Expanding your horizons" refers to you finding yet another nonstandard use for italics. Whaddaya want? Every time anybody grumbles, should they do it on your talk page? As for civility, civil is as civil does. I don't go around reverting your edits when they are matters of fact, not opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, yet another way to present information to the reader in a way that's clear and comprehensible -- oh my god! WHAT WAS I THINKING!!! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, ED, since you let me know in no uncertain terms that I could not post to your talk page, I will state for the record that you are not helpful to the Wiki project. Your attitude makes me ill. I would never tell my friend Rene, who's now an attorney in Ottawa, about my being a Wikipedian. Why? I would be too embarrassed about the load of manure we Wikipedians have to go through at times.  Or, she'd laugh of why I bother.  My response would be: because: IT MATTERS. And my friends follow policy (for a lack of a better word) to keep Wiki uniform. My friends are the best. Yes, no question, I'm wrong sometimes, maybe, often, and they tell me so, and I comply. "Out of the box," you say. Sure, in education.  In fact, I helped write a paper on the question for a graduate political science program, but not on Wiki, unless there is agreement. To be sure, your "bull in the china shop," attitude does not serve you well. -- Luigibob (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lugibob: I asked you not to post to my talk page after trying to get you to discuss the dispute numerous times on your talk page, to which you did not respond. When you did finally respond, it was to say you had no time -- but I noticed you had enough time for other editing, multiple reverts of the disputed edits, and (most tellingly) to run crying to SilkTork to do your dirty work for you.  You wouldn't talk to me until SilkTork had come running to your rescue, and by that time I was completely disgusted by your small mindedness, your slavish adherence to so-called "rules" even about the most trivial things, your inability to recognize when something actually improves an article, and your lack of willingness to discuss disputes with another editor. So, yes, you are no longer welcome on my talk page, nor is SilkTork, a good editor whose hypocracy in entering the fray and reverting my edits without discussion - even though he was well aware (since you told him) that there was an active dispute about it - astounds, saddens and depresses me. Once again, although you won't hear it because it comes from me, I suggest you take a close look at your attitude: "Let's all think out of the box, except not in this particular situation that I care about."  Lip service is always easy to give, it's much harder to actually follow through and live your espoused philosophy.  I know whereof I speak, since I trumpet rationality, yet I am often motivated by my emotions.  It's hard work, sometimes, to get past them and see the facts underneath - sometimes I'm successful, sometimes I'm not, but at least I'm usually aware (although it often happens in retrospect) of what's going on.  Maybe you'll develop that facility in yourself, someday. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Hotel Wikipedia
Hey friend. Thx. By the by, If I'm ever doing something wrong on Wiki, please do let me know, because I know you are one heck of an editor and I respect your view point. I trust you are doing well. As for me....this is a busy year trying to get a few qualified folks elected into office (hence my lack of Wiki edits)...let's cheer for the new Canadian Olympic Team...hip..hip.. Also, your comment was brilliant.. eh. I should share w/ my friend Rene (in Ottawa). Best-- Luigibob (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hotel Wikipedia
So Ed is expanding his horizons, eh? To paraphrase the Eagles, "we revert it with our steely edits, but we just can’t kill the beast." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Paradine Case
Yes, I have restored my edits. If you wish to talk about it then I'm willing to listen.  SilkTork  *Unfortunately, no 11:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The time to talk was before, not now.  Please don't post here again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re whining
I'm busy. I'm political consultant/publicist & photographer and this is the busy season, needless to say. My friend has always given me sound advice. He tells me when I'm wrong, etc. More later, I don't have the time to solve this situation. I'm late for a meeting. Gotta run. Luigibob (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to solve. Please do not post to my talk page again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Paradine Case
Hi Ed. You are known for your dislike of the consensus process, and prefering a more individualistic approach. And I do respect that. However, I feel you also need to recognise the consensus method on Wikipedia, as the project is based on that. You are working against consensus on The Paradine Case. Your revert of The Paradine Case puts the article into a format that you like as an individual, however, in cases where there is dispute between individuals on how to present an article we have discussions, and form a consensus. We then record the consensus in essays and guidelines. You are fully aware of this. If you wish to present an article against consensus, that is fine until someone puts the article into the consensual format. At that point you need to back away gently and go work elsewhere. Wikipedia is a big place and has many articles. However, if you do wish people to consider and take your ideas seriously, please do enter into a discussion on the talkpages of the relevant guidelines, essays, WikiProjects. Continuing to work against consensus, without entering into a discusion in the appropriate places, could be seen as disruptive. You are making work for yourself and others, and you are essentially putting your ego above the needs of Wikipedia as a whole. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 13:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Imitation of Life
I know you've done a lot of work on this article but that doesn't mean you own it and can revert another editor's work without a valid reason. I added the fact this was an American film and added the information about Time and you removed it without giving any explanation why. Also, if you're going to claim the 1934 version adheres closer to the book than the remake does but you're not going to reference your assertion, I think a citation is needed. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That claim is not mine, it was in the article when I started work on it -- and the Time information I moved down to "Awards and honors" where it belongs. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter that the claim is not yours, you are the one who removed the citation I added. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed no citations. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Ah, I see, you're referring to the "fact" or "citation" tag, not to an actual citation. Yes, I did remove it.  I've now removed entirely the claim that you tagged, so there's no need for it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)  To address some of your other queries - Sturges is mentioned because he's the only one of the other writers who is notable.  In other articles with the same situation, I've noted more than one of the additional writers in the lede if they were notable.  As for "redundant information": the lede is an introduction and quick summary of the article, which means that information in the lede is expected to appear in the body of the article, in expanded form if possible. Finally, I wikilink names in captions for the convenience of the reader.  I'm always thinking: what would I do if I were reading this article, and seeing the image of an actor or actress could certainly be the motivation for finding out more about them, hence the convenience of having a link right there -- why make the reader go elsewhere?  It's not like the link has an extravagant cost. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression it is standard pratice to wikilink names ONCE per article. In this instance, they are wikilinked in the infobox, plot synopsis, and cast list. I disagree that the reader needs them wikilinked in the images, too!

I was not questioning the fact Sturges is mentioned; I know he's the only one of the other writers who is notable. My objection was to listing him as a writer in the infobox.

BTW, don't you mean "lead" rather than "lede"? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, "lede" is the term used in journalism, to avoid confusion with the other meanings of "lead". And Wikilinks in film articles are somewhat different than in a general article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked two dictionaries and neither has "lede" in it. Why should wikilinks in film articles differ from what you refer to as "general" articles? Shouldn't there be consistency in ALL articles?
 * You say "the lede is an introduction and quick summary of the article, which means that information in the lede is expected to appear in the body of the article, in expanded form if possible." Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I have never read an encyclopedia article that repeats its information twice. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Lede" is a term specific to journalism. See .  Different types of articles have different needs, and therefore somewhat different conventions.  Comparing Wikipedia to print encyclopedia's is not always a useful process, since very few print encyclopedias would have the range of articles that Wikipedia does (although, admittedly, their depth might be better).  For instance, I doubt that any general print encyclopedia would have an article on "Imitation of Life", which would normally be found only in a film encyclopedia.  Because Wikipedia is not bound by the kind of space restrictions that print encyclopedia have, it has the freedom to cover more kinds of topics. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because "lede" is a term specific to journalism doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the dictionary, the same way medical, legal, and other professional terms are routinely found.

There is nothing wrong with the way I rewrote the lead. Please stop changing it without any justification other than your apparently wanting it to be in your words only. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually no. The lede I wrote is better organized and better presented.  It is, in fact, superior to the previous lede, whoever wrote it.  Sorry, that really is a fact, not an opinion. Please note, that if you revert again, you will be in danger of a 3RR violation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You already are guilty of a 3RR violation! Your ego must be ENORMOUS if you have the chutzpah to say "The lede I wrote is better organized and better presented. It is, in fact, superior to the previous lede, whoever wrote it" and then claim such a statement is fact, not an opinion!!! Who do you think you are, Shakespeare??? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly, just someone who can tell good writing from adequate writing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, that's strictly your POV. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Let's see if we can break this rather boring cycle. If we compare the first paragraph of the two ledes we see they only really differ in one respect:

My lede: name, date, genre, source material, director, writer(s), stars, featured actors

Your lede: name, date, genre, director, writer(s), source material, stars, featured actors

The only real difference is that I give pride of place to the source material, the book upon which the film is based. The book is the thing that without it the film would not exist. The person who wrote the book created the story which the film's writer adapted into a screenplay, and the studio paid the book's author to get the rights to that story. If they had made the film without having those rights, they would have been sued, because that story is the property of the book's author. This is an indication of the primacy of the book, a good reason to mention it first. Even the studio's advertising (in two out of the three posters which have been used in the article) take great pains to indicate that it's a film of the book. For these reasons, it seems to me appropriate to mention the book first in the lede, since it's the genesis of the film. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec):I see now what your objection to Sturges in the infobox was. I usually put in all the writers, but there were so many of them, I had chosen to put in only the notable name, which was Sturges. But I'm fine with listing all the writers there (8, not 10 --- two of the names on the IMDB listing are repeats) so I've added them in, changed the number of writers in the lede, and altered one wikilink in the lede to a more appropriate link for a film article. BTW, there are plenty of specialized terms in any field of endeavor which never make it into the dictionary.  If they don't come into general usage, and aren't likely to be come across by the general public, there's little reason for a general purpose dictionary to include them. That's why we have specialized dictionaries for specific subjects. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe a film's primary creator is the director and he should be acknowledged as such in the opening sentence. Advertising isn't the issue here. Film ads in the 1930s differed greatly from ads today. Nowadays many ads will say something like "From the director who brought you Last Year's Best Picture rather than "Based on the book by Herman Putz." Most screen credits begin with the phrase "A film by John Smith," not "A film based on the book by Mary Jones." The bottom line is the film wouldn't exist without the director. And to make things perfectly clear, that's my POV, just as yours is a POV. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm generally amenable to the auteur theory as well - but, tell me, what characterizes a "John M. Stahl" film? Do you recognize them when you see them, notice specific touches, tropes and idiosyncracies that make you aware that you're watching a film created by John M. Stahl?  Stahl is really a poor choice to hang an auteur argument on, he's pretty much a run-of-the-mill kind of director from the studio system days.  Now, if you were talking about Coppola, Sturges, Vadim, Speilberg, Ford and many, many other directors who put their distinctive stamp on their films, even (some of them) while working within the old studio system, then I'd say you had more of a point.  In short, it is not always the case that the director is the primary creator of a film.  Sometimes it's the writer, sometimes it's the producer (think of Arthur Freed), sometimes the most distinctive thing about the film is the underlying story that comes from the source material.  Sure, many times (especially now that auteurism has swept the industry) it's the director, but not always. In any case, I'm not familiar enough with Stahl or the book (or Hulrbut for that matter) to make a strong argument against listing the director first in this particular case, so I'm willing to let thing lie where they are if you are. BTW, the "A film by" stuff is really about contracts and the rules of the directors guild and screenwriters guild.  You are correct that on most films released today, the "a film by" credit is there, but in many case its justification is contractual, and not because the director is actually the primary creative force.  It's simply the current convention in Hollywood. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ida Lupino
That sounds good. I've got a couple of books where her career progression is briefly discussed, so that may also be useful too. I'll keep my eyes open for any changes to the article. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Imitation of Life poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Imitation of Life poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Don't restore removed comments
Please see WP:Don't restore removed comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.4.199 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an essay, not policy, and, in any case, it doesn't apply to IP editors, only those with accounts. The talk page connected with the IP address does not belong to you, and leaving comments visible is necessary to see the history of warnings that have been posted there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does apply to IP editors, and while WP:DRC is an essay, it exists because it clarifies exiting policy at WP:USER, as well as clarifies that there is not a policy against removing warnings, despite frequent attempts by members of the community to achieve one (see WP:PEREN). Since other relevant policies say that users can remove content from their user talk pages, and since no policy exists to exempt warnings, it is a valid (and nearly universal) interpretation to assume that warnings may be removed as well.  WP:DRC merely clarifies this.
 * Note that unblock requests, sockpuppet notices, etc., should not be removed, but any other warning is fair game. You can still see the warning in the history anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction, which I actually became aware of after this exchange. Incidentally, policy is wrong in this regard: allowing IP editors to edit their talk pages is deterimental to Wikipedia -- but, then again, IP editors should probably not be allowed to edit in the first place, it would cut down on a large percentage of the vandalism. Thanks again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work with the Sturges and Berkeley articles
Noticed these new articles, and it's nice to see them freshly turned out as Starts rather than Stubs. Just a brief note - the IMDb is not considered a reliable source on WP, so I would caution against using it for citations, since they will all require replacement in order to move up the assessment scale. Otherwise, steady on! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

auto-lemon
Hi, I noticed your posting at Lightmouse's talk page. Please note that autoformatting is no longer encouraged. See MOSNUM. In reality, no one cares which order day and month are in, and the differences between the spelling varieties we manage on an article-consistent basis are less trivial. TONY  (talk)  04:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point, I think. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks
Thank you for your vote at my RFA, which has now closed as a success. Regarding your comment about my talk space edits and lack of mainspace edits: My coach (Balloonman) was always on at me to do more mainspace edits, as other editors do like to see work on the main project rather than just in the background. And yes, I should have listened to him. I suspect the reason I have such high talk space edits is because I always warn vandals (registered and anon), and with the high amount of vandal fighting I do, it is kind of inevitable my talk space edit count will get very high.

Anyway, I thank you for your participation in my RFA, and please be reassured that I have taken your comments to heart. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting the tags in a bottom "tags" section
Hi there. I noticed you have been going around in a lot of articles and moving the various tags from the top of the article down to a subsection entitled "tags" at the bottom. I appreciate you are being bold, but I think you are going to get widespread opposition to this and I would discourage you from unilaterally doing this to articles without consensus. Long-standing community consensus has held that while the tags at the top of articles may be "distracting," they are an important disclaimer, particularly when they warn about poor references, etc., and so should be highly visible. Also, your practice of adding a "tags" section clutters the table of contents, which IMO is even more distracting than the tags at the top of article.

I would strongly urge you to stop doing this right away. I intend to revert you in places where you do this, and I am sure many other editors would as well. If you feel strongly about this, you could consider bringing it up at The Village Pump. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  13:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spacing?
Hi. What's the point of the spacing you're adding? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that without it, the lede is so close to the ToC (or the external links to the nav boxes or stubs) that it is annoying and unpleasant to look at. It makes the article look sloppy, and more difficult to read. My overriding concern is with the casual user who pops into Wikipedia looking for some information.  When they get here, they should find good, accurate information that is well presented.  Anything which gets in the way of this is detrimental to the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you considered trying to get a community consensus in one of the forums for that, such as the WP:Village Pump? That way it could be built in. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What Colfer2 said. Otherwise, you'd have to add this spacing to every single article in the system, no?  If it's unpleasant for you specifically, you could probably engineer a personal monobook.css to fix it.  Otherwise, I've never heard of anyone else making that complaint.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)
 * FWIW, I think I agree with Ed that it looks a little nicer with some extra whitespace above the TOC. However, I am skeptical about the method of just adding a carriage return to random articles you encounter... There is no consensus for this, and as Colfer2 says, if there were consensus, it would be better to have it built-in.  ---Jaysweet (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked but a CSS change could probably do it if things are designed well enough here. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, add some margin-top to table#toc in the system-wide CSS file and add some margin to S-start. Easy-peasy.  But you should get some consensus first.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've brought this issue up at WP:VPR and MediaWiki talk:Common.css. At worst, you could add "#toc { margin-top: 10px; }" to User:Ed Fitzgerald/monobook.css - like I did.  That would preferable to forcing blank lines and comments into numerous articles.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, the difference is hardly perceptive and certainly not worth going around and reverting it when someone removes it. The only reason I noticed it at all on Claudette Colbert was because one of the insertions was incorrectly formatted and showed up on the page ( <!-spacing, please do not remvoe--> ). I do agree that there is no consensus for this, and if it is determined to be an issue, there needs to be a better fix than this. Multiply reverting the removal of it by others seems to me to be disruptive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My thanks to everyone for the really helpful comments and information here. I've avoided answering immediately because, frankly, I didn't exactly know what to say -- I have mixed feelings. First, I'm thrilled to hear that it would be easy to globally change the look of Wikipedia to prevent the bottom of the lede from infringing on the ToC (I assume the same thing could be done for the last section of the article -- usually the external links -- from getting too close to the navboxes or secession boxes or stubs that fall beneath them), but at the same time, it's been my experience that trying to get that kind of global change instituted is very difficult. I've never participated at the Village Pump, but my experiences elsewhere in discussions of that sort have been... disheartening? disappointing? dispiriting? depressing? Whatever the right word is, it wasn't pleasant, and it's not something that I would willingly do again. Which is why I've been acting locally instead of globally, which, after all, is another perfectly legitimate way to go about things, Wikipedia being the open platform that it is. As a local editor, I don't carry the weight of responsibility for all 250 million (or whatever) articles in the project, only those which I've edited (and not even all of those) -- which is precisely the situation with the vast majority of editing here. Correcting the spelling of "traveling", for instance, doesn't impose upon me the burden of correcting the mispelling everywhere on the project, it's perfectly legitimate to make the change only on the page you're working on, or on every page you work on, or wherever you come across it. I don't see adjusting the spacing to be cleaner and more presentable to be any less of a legitimate local edit than correcting a mispelling, or moving the placement of an image, or any other edit which improves the encyclopedia. As for that change itself, I'm well aware that some people don't see that it makes much difference. All I can say is that on my system (and every other system I've used) under the browser I usually use (Internet Explorer), it makes a tremendous difference. I have looked at many pages under Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari (running under Windows Vista), and if I were running those browsers as my default, instead of IE, I would never have been prompted to make the change, but I do not find that the additional blank line is a problem in any way, it looks fine to me. So, on other browsers, the default spacing looks fine as it is, but on IE, the lede gets too close to the ToC, and on all browsers, the result with the additional spacing is an improvement. And it's never been a matter of what it looks like for my viewing purposes. I've been aware for a while that there was a fix to my CSS file that could fix the problem for me, but my overriding concern is, and has been almost from the very beginning of my time working on the project, not what I see, or what other registered users see, but what casual users of the encyclopedia see. Those people who want to look something up and have heard about Wikipedia, or gotten a link to it from Google, and just pop over to get what they need. Those people are the audience we need to be sucking in, if we are to become what I believe Wikipedia can be, the default primary source of information on the Web. Folks like that see things strictly with default settings, and what they see is going to be a large part of how they feel about the project -- along with the quality of the information, of course. That's why I say Good Information, Well Presented. So far, I think most of the emphasis here has been on making the information good: accurate, reliable, verifiable, but the presentation of that information: layout, the way images are used, and so on, has been given short shrift. It's not enough, for instance, to say that registered users can adjust the size of the thumbnails they see, so images shouldn't be hard-coded with sizes, because when that casual user comes over he's going to see a lot of text with postage-stamp sized mini-images that can barely be seen, and don't convey much in the way of non-textual information, the way a good image, well-placed and correctly sized can. That's hardly good presentation, and we need to address that. What I've been doing with adding spacing on a (relatively speaking) vanishingly small number of articles, is an attempt to make the articles I work on look as good as I can make them, so that the information in them is presented well. Let me say, finally (at long length), that should a global change be made, I will gladly go through and find each and every instance of spacing I've inserted and remove it, I feel that responsibility, but, given my previous experiences, I am loathe to make the kind of global argument that it's been suggested that I make. I've been there, and I've done that, and I've learned my lesson from it -- which is "stay far away from here." What I want to do is edit articles, and make them better, and thereby make the encyclopedia better. Again, I really do appreciate the comments here, and the time you've taken to read this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in the software business so I am always trying to think globally. My problem with your approach is that, if a global CSS change is made, then all of your "local" changes will have double-spacing and will look silly.  While you can say that you'll go back and fix them if that situation arises, we don't know when a global change would be done or if any of us will be available to find them all easily (it wouldn't show in a Google search to my knowledge).  My compromise would be for you to create a template or templates with your spacing.  Then, in your local changes, you can use the template.  If a global change is made, someone can quickly go to your spacing template and blank it out (or remove them all), thereby fixing all of the double-spacing in one shot.  I don't know what others would think of this, but I think it's about the best you can do. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I invariably use the same phrasing and formulation, I think you're somewhat overstating the difficulty of undoing these edits, either by hand or through automated or semi-automated means, whether or not the undo occurs within our time on Wikipwdia. As for a template -- don't think I haven't given thought to using one -- it would certainly be easier. Unfortunately, and this is something I've experienced first hand, it also makes it easier for the spacing changes to be undone before they have a fair chance to be accepted, or even fairly evaluated.  Here again, one bitten, twice shy.  I may not be the most perceptive person in the world, but I do try to take to heart the practical lessons I've been taught here by hard experience. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:WP:ANI
I have done nothing wrong,I'm just doing what WP:NC says. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as has been explained to you a number of times. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But "over" is a prepsotion! XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality not quantity
Hello. There is a very clear and fair policy, and we must not care about how many images do we have. The question is (In my option), how much we trust in these images.--OsamaK 08:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not undo my edits with unknown reason, before ending of discussion. This is so unfair, Everyone knows that sources are requested for all images!--OsamaK 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's happing with you?! You make discussion field!--OsamaK 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your page moves
If you're talking about me moving T.O.S. (Terminate on Sight) to T.O.S (Terminate on Sight),I did that per the album's cover. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion
It doesn't look like you've been notified yet, but OsamaK has started an ANI discussion about you here. In regards to that, your recent revisions of OsamaK's edits could look like stalking if viewed the wrong way, and I suggest you slow down the pace or use edit summaries. All but 8 of your last 50 contribs (when I checked) have been reverting his edits, and they've lacked a summary besides the standard undo summary. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * His tagging is the subject of an earlier ANI thread here, so I've combined them together. As has been explained there, the editor is tagging obviously PD images, and if the tags aren't removed, the images will be lost. This has been explained to him. Let's keep this discussion in one central place, so please respond to my comment on ANI rather than here.  Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
Good morning, Ed Fitzgerald. Thank you for fixing my user talk page, but excuse me, don't forget to check Minor edits, then I'll not be noted for a new message. Thank you again!--OsamaK 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way...
Please stop leaving dickish comments on User:XxJoshuaxX's talk page. These comments can be considered gloating, and they are not positive contributions. Xnux  the   Echidna  03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What comments are you referring to as "dickish"? The one where I asked him to stop doing inadvisable page moves, the one where I pointed him to the report on ANI about him, or the one where I offered some (what I believe is quite important) advice -- that if you're going to be bold, you are better off if you're certain that you're right. Boldness may be commendable, but getting it right really is better, even if you aren't bold in doing so. Good advice, I think. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, telling him why you believe you were right is okay. However, your so-called "advice" is nothing more than a gloat-ish comment targeted at him. It is neither helpful nor friendly. Please refrain from making these types of comments in the future. Xnux  [[User talk:Xnux|the ]] Echidna  04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you totally misinterpreted what I meant, but given your support for his very silly page moves, that doesn't really surprise me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here is that no one is "right" or "wrong". There is merely a more vocal group of people who believe they are right, and Wikipedia likes to call it consensus. The point is, refrain from calling other people's actions "silly" and the like, because that is not justifiable. Xnux   the   Echidna  04:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a mighty good point you've got there, pardner. Deep stuff. Thanks. Now please go away. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Taglines
Hello, thank you for your message. I looked at what you reverted, and I'm not sure how placement suddenly makes these taglines relevant. All films have a tagline (or taglines), intended to be marketing gimmicks. Unless noted by reliable sources, they're indiscriminate. It seems unnecessary to include such promotional language if the premise of a film is neutrally explained. I'm not really going to make a fuss about it, but I just wanted to know your thoughts. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A film is not only a piece of art, and a piece of entertainment, it's a commercial item, a piece of mechandise. How it's sold is always relevant.  Putting that information in a seperate section or sub-section, with no context is understandable objectionable, since it puts undue weight on the information presented, but as just another item in the text, it's perfectly legitimate. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you for explaining. I think I came across a few more similar tagline incorporations and dodged these. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert on Caligula and Armageddon? Neither of the taglines are included in the body of the article. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Caligula was my mistake, the other ... well, it's borderline, since the tagline is really just tacked on to the end of the sentence, with no real context. I've reverted both back to your version.  Sorry. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm going to see if I can find out what taglines are notable and maybe provide them as examples.  Would you agree that taglines are not generally appropriate for the lead section unless they are deemed truly significant?  They seem worth mentioning in a marketing or distribution section, but rarely as part of a "concise overview" the lead section provides. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd agree with that, generally. (I think I may have put them in the lede once or twice when re-writing an article, because of a lack of any other section to put them in, but I did so reluctantly.) "Marketing", "Release", "Distribution", "Reception", I think they all could accomodate tagline information, depending on the specific needs of the article.  I've included them in "Production" sections when the section also had release information (do to a lack of later sections to put it in -- there's a natural narrative linkage between production dates and release dates).  But unless the tagline is extraordinarily well-known, or the marketing campaign notable in and of itself (the movie equivalent of "Where's the beef?"), the lede doesn't seem the right place for them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Samuel Cortez.jpg
Hello, Ed. Please review Image:Samuel Cortez.jpg, It is a very clear image without license. Please don't restore all edits by me :)--OsamaK 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy took the picture himself and posted it. Clearly no problem with the image. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He forgets to add a license. Sorry, is that hard to understand?--OsamaK 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, just to clarify here Ed, it is not good enough that the image is such that it could have valid licensing info... the licensing info must actually appear in the image page. This is not a policy determined by consensus, it is by order of the Wikimedia foundation and is therefore non-negotiable.
 * If you wanted to take it upon yourself to fill in the licensing information for the user and then remove the tag, this would be quite admirable. But you can't just remove the tag.  The Foundation requires explicit licensing info for all images. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think since the user created it, they have to add the licensing info themselves. Specifically, he must add  (or an equivalent notice).
 * Without explicitly releasing the work under the GFDL, it is not properly licenses as far as the Foundation is concerned. This would be like if you bought a house from me, and when I got the money I handed you the keys but we never drew up a deed. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait... looking at the helpful info you added to the user's talk page, you already knew all of this. Better than I know it, in fact.  Which is great!  But then you should know not to remove the tag.  Again, removal of images that do not have licensing information added within a certain amount of time is a Foundation mandate.  You do not get decide to go against it just because it is "silly" or not friendly to new users.  I applaud you for helping to explain more clearly what the user has to do to rectify the licensing information, but the time-dated tag is there for a reason.  I am restoring it. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said it wasn't mandated, I said it was silly, and so it was, and continues to be. Here in New York City, as in many places in the U.S., it is against the law to "jaywalk", to cross the street not at an intersection or against the traffic light or walk/don't walk sign -- and yet just about everybody does it. In fact, at certain times of the day, Manhattan would grind to a dead halt if people didn't jaywalk.  Now, a policeman who decided to ticket everyone who jaywalked at rush hour in midtown Manhattan would certainly be operating within his mandate, but he's still be pretty damn silly. In the case of this image, it was clear that the photo was someone's personal work and not an otherwise copyrighted image, and the thing to do -- the practical thing to do, the polite thing to do, the  right  thing to do -- would have been to drop the uploader a note along the lines of the one I posted, pointing out the problem and giving some tips about how to fix it.  If the uploader did not fix the image, then it's perfectly justifiable to tag it, but to simply slap a tag on the image in this circumstance  is rude and contrary to the concept of Wikipedia as a community.  It was, in fact, a pretty damn silly thing to do, as dogmatic enforcement of rules without consideration of the circumstances frequently is. I stand by my actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have my support! Users who go around relentlessly adding deletion tags to images clearly in the public domain have no interest whatsoever in improving Wikipedia, end of story. Sources are meant to establish PD status. If that status is already unquestionable, no source is strictly necessary. At the very least, the tag should be a simple notice with no malicious mention of "deletion." Algabal (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:You're disregarding what's been told to you before...
What Lil hyphy12 is doing is changing "Let Me Get 'em" to "Let Me Get Em" and "YAHHH!" to "Yahhh!" on the article souljaboytellem.com. Like you said,the official name comes before the English rules. "YAHHH!" is the official name,per the Billboard charts. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is so totally uninteresting I'm unable to express it in words....  except... Oh well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I want to thank you for letting me be myself, again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Political question?
I not sure if this is "political;" and in fact, I'm hoping it is not ....

At WP:AN/I, you suggested a "fresh start" in the context of a discussion I have not followed. My interest is only in that term -- where did it come from? This term does not appear to be associated with any Wikipedia conventions. Fresh start (an anti-Maastricht Treaty group within the British Conservative Party opposed to the Maastricht Treaty) and Fresh Start (detergent) (a Colgate-Palmolive laundry product) are unrelated. If it's just a term you've introduced in this unique setting and nowhere else, fine. I just wondered.

I attempted to use a similar concept in a military-related setting -- at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, but it fell on deaf ears. In retrospect, it seems likely that it would have made no difference if there had been a pre-existing link to Reset (military term); but perhaps it may make a difference in future.

The political question has to do with this military term. How do "depoliticize" the article I'm about to create. It seems likely that there may be numbers of editors and users for whom American military terminology becomes a priori political before it's even possible to reach the content threshold which implies something like your "fresh start?"

As a general rule, most of the new Wikipedia articles I've created have to do with pre-Meiji Japan, and this odd, overly-sensitive hesitation simply doesn't arise. However, I'm not unaware of those critical voices on the francophone internet decrying the American bias in the World Wide Web; and I've noticed similar comments across a range of English-language Wikipedia articles. Other than searching for British and Commonwealth military specialists in an effort to discover a congruent British and commonwealth term, can you think of something off-hand which might be relevant in creating an article which would have broader usefulness in Wikipedia contexts like you yourself created?

A further point: I really like the term "fresh start" -- not as much as "reset". Can you foresee any reason why I shouldn't re-name the article about the British activists in the 80's as Fresh Start (British politics). This would leave something like "your" fresh start in the primary position.

Final question: When I noticed your sub-heading, my first-blush plan was to create "Fresh start" as a re-direct page; but now that I think about it, maybe the perceived "political" problems with an article about an American military term would be diminished if the article itself were entitled "Fresh start" -- with "Reset" as a re-direct page?

Do you have any thoughts to share on this unanticipated subject? --Tenmei (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not precisely sure how to respond, since "fresh start" doesn't really have any external contextual meaning to me, it's simply an expression meaning to start over again without carrying in anything negative from before. It has no particular military, political or historical connotations for me whatsoever, it's simply an idiomatic twitch. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI size
Really? If you're going to wait so long for an answer, can we move all that to a subpage? ANI barely loads for me at this point. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And besides, you're wanting a fresh start. So let everything prior be archived.  You can move your new subsection elsewhere if you want.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, the guy hasn't been on since he posted his last comment. How about waiting another 12 hours, and if there's no answer then, archive it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDb rankings
Unfortunately, the rankings don't satisfy MOSFILM. Wiki doesn't have any "grandfather clause" allowing them to stay.

The films are already critically applauded by numerous critics and professional film organizations; the removal of the IMDb rating/ranking won't change their reputations. --Madchester (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, their long-term occupation of those lists remains a signficant fact, whatever the deficiencies of the list itself. Please start a discussion on either or both pages before you revert. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion here: Talk:The_Godfather. Cheers, --Madchester (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll be over there soon. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance fair
Hey Ed. I just saw your edits on this page, and I was wondering why you added this tags section to the bottom. This is the first time I've seen such a subheader added to the external links, so I was wondering, what exactly is supposed to go there? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Single-Double navboxes
I have never liked the look of two navboxes, and the Kentucky in the War was more relevant, which is why I made the changes I did.-- Bedford Pray  21:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many articles have two navboxes, and both are relevant. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Tag; Skyscraper
Care to enlighten me on why you placed the tag at the bottom of the page? Thanks for the input. Someformofhuman Speak now!  00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Wikipedia is a place for anyone to edit? The fact that we place them on top, frankly we're maintaining the notion of welcoming everyone to take note of and do the necessary changes though. I don't think it really disfigures the page. (Tags are better designed than they are the last time... Yuck.) Moreover, I would like to employ the idea of consistency of placing these tags. But then again, at the moment there's no law or statement that says we have to specifically place them whether it be on head, or footer on the page. We'll see how and what other users think about it though... Hey, these few days, kinda busy with so many of our own real life work, no time to edit Wikipedia as I used to before... :( Anyway Thanks again. Someformofhuman  Speak now!  02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can edit, but the goal of editing it is to create an encyclopedia for people to use, and that should be the overriding concern, not the convenience of the editors. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  13:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess so. Have you addressed this issue to the committee? Someformofhuman  Speak now!  00:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The committee"? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)