User talk:BradBeattie/Archive5

Overcompensating
Why did you delete it? That comic is certainly relevant since J. Rowland is so responsible for the whole "snakes on a plane" internet phenomenon. -Tom Gray
 * It appears he deleted it because it did not fit the necessary criteria to remain as an article, despite its tens of thousands (possibly more) of fans. See the Articles_for_deletion/Overcompensating article for the very brief discussion (and grand total of three people voting) as to why it should be deleted. All this means is it is gone for now as the fans will surely recreate it at some point, regardless of the rules. --Ihmhi 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how thousands of fans do against one overzealous editor. -Angry Overcompensating/White Ninja Comics fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.1.27 (talk • contribs)


 * I've yet to see any evidence of "tens of thousands" or "thousands" of fans. Please provide evidence. And again, Ihmhi, if you have a problem with a deletion, you are free to take it to deletion review. To the IP: threats are pointless. If you have something to discuss, I'm sure Brad will be happy to talk. --Fang Aili talk 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep yep. Just as Fang said, I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion about it. Unfortunately, a fair number of these fans have been fairly... undiplomatic. I've also had 0 contact me by email or IM to talk with me directly. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (This is the IP) First, a quick apology.  My words came off rather harsh because I was, well, angry.  Now that I am more level-headed, here is my argument.
 * These articles were deleted based on notability. So I will attempt to show that what you kept is actually, for the most part, less notable than the two comics I don't think you should have deleted.  I'm going to use Technorati as a metric.  If you disagree with Technorati (i.e. counting back-links) then you can disregard my argument, but here goes.  The two that I care for, Overcompensating and White Ninja Comics, get a rank of 9,539 (939 links from 340 blogs) and 3,480 (1,076 links from 656 blogs), respectively.  Of the seven you kept, Cuentos De La Frontera (in which I had to use the main page, Modern Tales, to get a rank) had a rank of 35,009 (685 links from 109 blogs), Help Desk a rank of 62,395 (135 links from 64 blogs), Jerk City a rank of 71,024 (136 links from 57 blogs), Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet had no rank (only 42 links though), The Noob a rank of 26,246 (225 links from 143 blogs), The Whiteboard had no rank (only 287 links), and Wondermark had a rank of 6,916 (825 links from 434 blogs).  Of those, only one of them ranked remotely close to the two that I do not think you should have deleted.
 * I'm not sure why you think they're unpopular, but seriously, just because you don't think it's a popular comic does not make it so. Perhaps number of back links have no bearing on notability, I'm not a wiki-expert.  However, back-links seem pretty good for Google (PageRank is based on # of backlinks), and I believe it to be a decent (if not perfect) metric of popularity.
 * Your steadfast support of what I (and some others, evidently) consider a bad decision is unfortunate, especially when you gave such short notice to update. I would reconsider.
 * Also, sorry about the lack of username. I've never bothered to get registered.  --I have no idea how to write signatures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.22.1.27 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Your steadfast support of what I (and some others, evidently) consider a bad decision is unfortunate, especially when you gave such short notice to update. I would reconsider.
 * Also, sorry about the lack of username. I've never bothered to get registered.  --I have no idea how to write signatures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.22.1.27 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Also, sorry about the lack of username. I've never bothered to get registered.  --I have no idea how to write signatures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.22.1.27 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Also, sorry about the lack of username. I've never bothered to get registered.  --I have no idea how to write signatures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.22.1.27 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Hey there. The question that we need to address here is whether or not the comics in question satisfy any of the requirements of WP:WEB. If you believe they do, you can petition the deletion at WP:DRV. If you believe they don't, but that WP:WEB isn't a good gauge of notability, then you can try and reach consensus to change the guideline on it's talk page.


 * I recognize that those outside of the Wikipedia community aren't well versed in the policies here, so if you need a hand doing either I'm more than willing to help. Just let me know which direction you want to take this (WP:DRV or WP:WEB) and I'll make sure that the people in the right place hear your arguments. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm personally unsure as to why we need the bureaucracy... but okay. Within a few minutes I found one reason to keep White Ninja Comics.  Here's my argument for White Ninja Comics: http://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/2468 (eBook, which satisfies #3 of WP:WEB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.22.1.27 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The problem with TradeBit is that it isn't non-trivial publishing. I double-checked my intuition by asking over on WP:WEB's talk page, but it seems that method of publishing doesn't satisfy clause 3 of the guideline. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reprographics (webcomic)
What do you think about the notability of Reprographics (webcomic)? I ran across this while deleting image backlogs. --Fang Aili talk 21:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll follow your lead. :) --Fang Aili talk 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Update
Hey, you're back, my oft-opponent! Kind of good to see you. Since you edit in the field a lot, let me bring you up to speed on the recent webcomics WikiDrama that, as it happens, started a short while after you left.

First, off-site awareness of the events here seems to be increasing as the webcomic community as a whole catches on to the fact that, to my rough estimate, between a third and a fourth of our entire significant webcomic coverage has been eradicated within the last year. (You I don't blame - much - you seem committed to hunting out the tiny ones.) This can be expected to continue while we keep clinging to *RANT OMITTED*.

Second and the least important, the WCCA article was placed in DRV, where the decision to delete was found to have been made on a "I AM the law!" basis, and the article survived a procedural second AfD. During the time it was down, its loss was used as proof of the awards' insignificance on-wiki, and as evidence that we have it in for webcomics in off-wiki bursts of flak (of which there has been many).

Third, Kristofer Straub committed an interesting experiment by nominating his own webcomic for deletion with a total of ten sockpuppets making massive factual errors and arguing with one another. The article was deleted and apparently nobody bothered to run a checkuser on anon "delete" voters. This probably means something. After the story broke, the article was restored, then re-AfD'd and re-deleted.

Fourth, we had an unprecedented flurry of deletion nominations, arguments, windmill-tilting and other such fun. Honestly, I don't know how you administrators take it. Ugly Hill was AfD'd, prompting its author to send over a horde of enraged fans to the discussion, where they acted much like howler monkeys. (The article was kept after these were carefully discounted.) This prompted several other nominations and the sudden spike in deletion attempts drew the attention of prominent people in the field as the mess fed and was fed by the three previous points. To the best of my understanding, one Wikipedia reader concluded from the Ugly Hill AfD that we're in a state of mob rule, registered and set off to destroy the walled gardens of webcomic articles while having admitted that he knows nothing about webcomics. (This means that claims of anti-webcomic activists created one. The irony is delicious.) When the dust of that settled, he invoked the right to vanish. I think I quoted your statement that Keenspot membership is sufficient notability on two occasions. My apologies if that was too intrusive or something, but I was still slightly giddy over the fact that you had actually written that.

At the moment, things are quiet and have returned to something approaching normal. --Kizor 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article
Hi. I've noticed that you appear to have been working on converting the article Kitsune into a spoken version for over two months now, according to your entry on the In Progress section of Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia. If you are no longer working on the article, please either remove yourself from the list, or notify me so I can do so, so other editors will know they can work on the article instead. If you don't reply within a week, I will assume you are no longer working on the article. Cheers, Panser Born   (talk)  19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kansai-ben userboxes
In this topic on my talk page, User:Julian Grybowski has suggested creating a set of userboxes for people who speak Kansai-ben. I remembered that you made the template for people in Osaka. If you can help out by providing feedback on what might be good text for the boxes, please do so. Dekimasu よ! 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Not sure how much help I'd be as my knowledge of Kansai-ben is so limited as to be considered obscene. :P --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A Targeted Subpage of Yours
Hello Brad! You might want to keep an eye on your User:BradBeattie/To Do subpage. Its being targeted by many IPs at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm watching it too. --Fang Aili talk 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I protected it. --Fang Aili talk 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fang, you Brad's sockpuppet or what? Why not let him clean up his own mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.42.93 (talk • contribs)

Non-notability
Have you ever wondered that maybe the fact that makes Wikipedia so great is that you can search it for anything you can imagine and there's a good chance that you'll get an article? Every time I search for a subject in Google, follow a link to Wikipedia and see a "There's no article here, go away" page, I feel like I'm being personally insulted. It's like Wikipedia is telling me "Well, we had some stuff here you might have been interested in, otherwise you wouldn't be searching for it, but we're going to deny you the right to obtain this information because we're pricks. We could have just given you what you asked us, it's not like we'd lose anything considering it is still stored here, but we're not." For several times now, I've had to use Google cache to read an article that interested me, yet someone else decided it wasn't important.

Wikipedia isn't, and never will be, a Britannica replacement. Wikipedia is essentially quantity over quality. Sure, the most important articles *must* be of excellent quality, but what's so wrong with letting so called "non-notable" articles alone? Don't get me wrong, vanity articles and articles about your High School should be killed on sight or WP will become a dump, but deleting articles that could be relevant to many people just because it's "non-notable to me" and "it's interwebs stuff and should be killed with fire" is just making Wikipedia suck more.

Deleting them won't even save space, all history is kept on the databases, including the history of deleted articles. So what's the fucking point? Is one supposed to get a sysop account for the sole purpose of reading articles that were deemed "non-notable" by "experts"?

Thanks for denying information to people and help making Wikipedia a worse place. -213.146.215.217 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of trolling someone's userpage, how about you actually go do something useful? If you really want to disseminate information, go and find one of the many free webhosts available, and set up a page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal collection of information. Your opinion does not give you the right to insult other editors. --Fang Aili talk 20:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because every article in Wikipedia is so encyclopedic. Would that article be included in any general encyclopedia other than a Wiki? No. Is it irrelevant, devoid of information and useless to any human being? Not a chance. Have you ever wondered that what makes something encyclopedic is its inclusion in a encyclopedia? Or are most wikipedians so brainwashed by all the pages that start with WP: that can't even see obvious circular logic? It's not about disseminating information. It's about denying people the right to obtain knowledge on a subject someone else tried to enrich Wikipedia with but was merciless taken away by an army of people who assume "anything I haven't heard of == non-notable == doesn't have a place on a online encyclopedia". Isn't this what Wikipedia is all about? A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit with the sum of all the knowledge in the world? How can we ever reach that goal if some people insist on removing knowledge? But you are correct, this isn't the best place to discuss this. This person is just one man among an army of people who think they're fighting a war against what makes Wikipedia suck, but ironically, they're only slowly taking away what makes it shine among all the other regular conventional Encyclopedias. -213.146.215.217


 * Oh come off it. This "editor" has a disgusting to-do list. He is pathetic. He deserves whatever he gets as a result. I mean, really, it's one thing to delete non-notable articles as you come across them, and it's another thing to actively search for non-notable articles of a certain variety just to delete them all. --71.235.102.239 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm curious about what prompted the nominations for deletion of various webcomics articles. I think a lot of those items that got deleted were valid articles. I'm interested to hear your side, and I'm not going to attack you. If you want I can give you my email address so we can correspond off the Wikipedia pages. I think it might already be on my userpage, come to think of it. As you can see, I am a longtime Wikipedia contributor. Best, glasperlenspiel 20:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the civility Glasper; it's much appreciated. However, I think I have to address everyone who's bound to come asking though, if the above is any indication of people's concerns.
 * Instead of answering each individual question and accusation, let me try and address the fundamental problem we have here by stepping back to some common ground and working up from there. I think we'd all agree that Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia. While it might not have the limitations standard paper distributions have regarding size, there are certain subjects that would be clearly inappropriate. I doubt anyone would protest if an article on my 5th eyelash was deleted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * That being said, we need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what constitutes sufficient notability for inclusion. Yeah, this is going to be hairy, but it's necessary. Wikipedia has it's inclusionists and deletionists, but I think both camps are working in the best interest of what we're trying to do here: build something of quality. We just disagree as to how to do it.
 * WP:WEB is the guideline that we have for web-content notability and it's been taking a lot of flak in these last few months. Be that as it may, what else do we have to go on? If there's a problem with the guideline, let's discuss it civilly and maybe we can find a better way of quantifying what's notable and what isn't.
 * As for what spurned the deletion nomination spree, it came up in the discussions on the WP:AFD boards that many web comics, regardless of size/readership/media coverage/notability/whatever you want to call it, had articles. So I took it upon myself to spend a couple weeks going through the category and nominating those that seemed to fail the guideline for deletion. Note that I didn't delete any myself there. Each was nominated and discussed. There were bound to be some grey spots, but I think we (the AFD participants) did our best to be as fair as we could.
 * Anywho, I ramble. Hopefully that addresses the questions and concerns. No doubt there'll be more, but I figured I'd try to be accountable for an action that I initiated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It might just be me, but the fact that some of these comics that you have essentially led the charge to axe having tens of thousands of readers might make them encyclopedia worthy. I read over the notability criteria for them and a few of your deletes can definitely be disputed; Overcompensating comes to mind (especially with the Snakes On A Plane popularity that came from it). I know in time these pages are going to come back in one form or another, even though you deleted them now. I would wager that a few of these articles meet the criteria if someone put the effort into finding the links necessary for resources. I also have noticed that it seems you went straight for a delete instead of making any sort of concerted effort to make the pages better or find links (if you have; you have not really documented it very well). Lastly, congratulations; you have managed to piss off tens of thousands of fans of some of these comics. The rational ones will just rebuild the pages and do whatever it takes to get them to fit the criteria necessary to keep them from deletion; the irrational ones are going to look to the person who went on a webcomic deletin' crusade and vandalize the shit out of anything his name is on. Good luck with the inevitable cleanup... --Ihmhi 05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I didn't delete these pages. I only initiated the discussion. I'm not sure why I'm the one getting all this flak. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider for a moment that I know nothing of a given subject, for example The Third Reich and started suggesting the deletion of people who were very important to the movement as a whole but obscure. Just because I am ignorant of the subject does not mean I should want to remove something I know nothing about. That is why people did not take well. 75.160.193.166 06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The people you speak of (who presumably have articles) should have supporting sources to prove their existence and notability. Webcomics are no exception. WP:WEB is our current guideline of notability. If you disagree with that guideline, take it to the talk page and hash it out. --Fang Aili talk 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the deletion of Overcompensating, gather your evidence and take it to deletion review. It's really that simple. As for predictions of vandalism, rest assured there are hundreds of editors who fight vandalism every day, and those vandals will be reverted and blocked, if necessary. --Fang Aili talk 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletionism vs. Inclusionism
Hi, Brad. This isn't specifically directed at you - but let's face it, much of the anger towards the recent streak of webcomics (and general) deletionism has eventually found its way back to your user page. So, this is me, saying something to you, and all the deletionists, and all the inclusionists.

First, to the deletionists: Wikipedia is many things, but a true encyclopedia - and I mean encyclopedia like Britannica, as in, a modest amount of information on most major subjects in the world - a true encyclopedia it is not. It is, if anything, the Hitchhiker's Guide - a universally accessible resource of all the information on Earth. Clearly, not all of it - but the knowledge, the intellectual information that a fair number of people might want to know about.

You must surely be aware of the enourmous double standard here. There is an article for almost every suburb in Sydney's Northern Beaches - and for every station on the CityRail system, including Wondabyne, a station only notable for its exceptional smallness. (Wondabyne, incidentally, serves a community of about twelve homes.) Now, take White Ninja Comics - one of the more notable articles on your crusade. There are over five thousand registered forum members, and I would guess at least double that in readership. I would say that's a conservative estimate. (I'm not one of them, incidentally. I don't get it most of the time.) So, ten thousand readers. And, apparently, syndication (there are hints of this in the AFD page - although, because the article was deleted, I'll never know). This isn't notable? This is less notable than a railway station that doesn't even have a connecting road?

Secondly, to the inclusionists: actually, the deletionists should read this as well. I was going to say "These articles are marked as up for deletion, and the reasons why are stated - much of the time it's because they're not properly cited, or they need cleanup, so do something about it! You can stop it from happening!" - which is still valid. You can stop it from happening. But I had a closer look at the dates and discovered that between nomination and deletion there is a mere five days. That's not enough time to ensure that anyone will do anything about making the article better. So, please, if you mark an article for deletion - give it some time. Put it 'on notice', as Stephen Colbert would say.

Secondly, and this is directly aimed at inclusionists - if you are an author of a webcomic, or a close friend of an author, or if you know them at all, then you can't posit an unbiased opinion on that article. Wikipedia is built on a solid foundation of a Neutral Point Of View. This is not your ad space. If you've created a webcomic, don't create a Wikipedia article for it. Just don't. If you know someone who has created a webcomic, don't. Et cetera.

And last, but not least, if your readership is less than a thousand, then sorry, you're nothing special. The number of visitors to your article will be so small that there's no point fighting over it. This doesn't mean delete it on the grounds of notability. This means, if someone creates an article for your webcomic, and it's good (not FA good, but B+ good), and they haven't created some ridiculous disambiguation page where 99% of traffic will be directed away from your article - then it should be kept. If it's interfering with people who want information on a different subject of the same name - if it's poorly written - if it's not NPOV - if it's any of the other reasons for deletion apart from notability - get rid of it. Wikipedia may be the Hitchhiker's Guide, but at least the Guide was well-written.

–Gorman 11:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to substitute the word "webcomics" with anything else. This applies universally.


 * Hey there Gorman. So if I get what you're saying here, you're suggesting that WP:WEB have a fourth clause for inclusion: readership. We could agree that if every web user read some web content then chances are it's notable. If some website is read only by it's author, then that readership alone isn't sufficient for notability.
 * Question is, where in there is the magic number that we want to settle on? 1000 readers or more? 10,000? And if we settle on an exact number, how do we accurately measure a website's unique visitor base? I'm not saying that readership shouldn't be included in WP:WEB, just that there are some serious hurdles to overcome if it's going to be part of the list. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that's the overall gist of it, although the more general stuff - like marking pages for deletion significantly in advance of actually deleting them - extends far beyond WP:WEB. However, I appreciate the difficulty of the situation. What's the definable scope of Wikipedia? Maybe someone should ask Jimbo Wales. Gorman 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The list was just from skimming through the webcomics category and finding the pages that didn't seem to meet the content guidelines. Had I done it with band, it would have been the same. It's just that many people were noting months ago that there were a lot of non-notable comic articles, which is why I went wandering through the category. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Flak
''To clarify, I didn't delete these pages. I only initiated the discussion. I'm not sure why I'm the one getting all this flak. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)''

You are probably getting flak because you have what appears like a hit list against webcomics with a lot more red then green. Furthermore, a few of the AFD pages have a woefully  small number of votes which gives the appearance of a small group of people ganging up against webcomic articles because of some power trip. Hey, I think that the articles should have had a concerted effort to improve them rather than delete them, but I guess that did not happen here. I am just trying to explain why you are getting all of the shit. --Ihmhi 04:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: [this blog post] (below the comic) would explain a lot of the flak as well, as you got Jeffrey Rowland (and his tens of thousands of fans) pissed off at you. --Ihmhi 04:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Another thing that is probably getting you some flak is that the Cleaning Category:Webcomics section on your "To Do" page looks more like a collection of hunting trophies as opposed to articles you actually intend to work on. Perhaps if you removed this it would help to cut down on the flak.--GarTheDestroyer 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gar, the difficulty I found was that even after an article was found non-notable and deleted, fans of said comics would come back and recreate the article. That list is (A) a record of what I've been working on as to hold me more accountable and (B) a quick way to notice if someone's recreating articles they likely shouldn't be. I recognize that some people are interpreting it as a "hit list", but if that were the case, why would there be a "keep" section? They're just articles I thought at first glance should be discussed for possible deletion, not "OMG MUST DELETE!!!!11eleven". --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tanzan Shrine
I took it upon myself to create this article, using your pics. See what you think. Grant | Talk 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like! Thanks for adding the information I was unable to find. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting swipe
I swiped the formatting on your "to do" page for the table on my userpage. I hope this is ok, if not please let me know. Epameinondas 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

CampsFM
I apologize for the late response, but I'm still new to the Wikipedia talk thing.

Anyway, I don't know why you took exception with Chris Kelly (Radio) having an entry in Wikipedia, since he's worked at WKSC-FM in Chicago (market number 3)for 3+ years now, in addition to his work in Madison, WI and Milwaukee, WI. He's not a FT jock, but he's consistently scheduled on the weekends, and is their fill-in jock of choice who has worked every shift except afternoons at WKSC-FM. He's even got his own web page on WKSC's website.

Coming from a radio background, someone who has worked on-air consistently in the 3rd largest market in the United States of America is notable. Let's not be elitist about who we "allow" into Wikipedia; actors with only a few film, TV or stage credits are in without anyone contesting them. There shouldn't be a double-standard for people who work in radio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Campsfm (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikiguard
Hi. I have downloaded WikiGuard but cannot find instructions for it anywhere. Am I just being thick? Gillyweed 13:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Y'know what? I don't think I ever wrote any. :( I've put the project on hold for a while as I'm settling into my new life here in a new city, but I'll come back to it in time and polish it up (with documentation too!). --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd appreciate that.  I'd like something a bit snazzier for doing in vandals than my own manual methods.  Everything is written for PC damn it.  I've run it and it all looks very smart, but some bits I can figure out. Please let me know when you have written something I can read! Gillyweed 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have to second some sort of guide. Heck my name is MrMacMan all i can seem to be doing is rating edits if they are vandalism or not... and when i try to show it clear vandalism (to try and program it) it doesn't seem to accept this 'change'. Maybe i'm just using it wrong but either way a guide would be most helpful. :D MrMacMan  Talk  23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please rewrite/port WikiGuard to Mac OS 10.3? Thanks in advance. Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WikiGuard relies on CoreData, an API specific to 10.4. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ohhh, well. Guess I'll just have to use Old School Style until I get a new Mac. Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kerflufle
''At the moment, things are quiet and have returned to something approaching normal. --Kizor 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)''

Looks like things got a little heated for a couple days. The majority of it is over on my talk page. Your thoughts on the matter? --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Looks like I really need that aspirin right about now." I'll let you know when other ones start to turn up. --Kizor 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. Just for the record, I planned an answer - an elaborate, firebrand one of the "look ye now upon what you have wrought" variety. Then Vtech happened and I was forced to get some perspective. Now on a more rational basis, I don't know if I have much to add. The aggression of the commentators was saddening if not surprising, and only cheapened what arguments they had. You know my position - notability is somewhat ethereal, hardline enforcement of inclusion criteria on an art form that's fifteen years old and by definition avoids coverage in the traditional media is counterproductive - and, frankly, I've been a bit nervous about webcomic policy discussions after I was accused of being on a campaign of harassment, since I know that I'll be watched for mistakes. --Kizor 19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

HELP!!!
I would like to notify you that I have problems with downloading WikiGuard. Please HELP!!! --ISOLA&#39;d ELBA 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC), Member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
 * Hrm... Try this link. --Brad Beattie (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW
Hey Brad, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 17:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. How do i get a magic dot like yours on my userpage?


 * The "magic dot" is a template that I've included into all my pages. Take a look at User:BradBeattie/Status. As for the MCotW, I'm focusing on things non-wiki related at the moment, but when I return, I'll be sure to take a look at it. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply!--Cronholm144 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:WikiGuard.png
Hi, I thougt you might like to know that ^demon deleted Image:WikiGuard.png, "unused and nonfree".

—Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I'll follow up with ^demon and see why it was deleted. Cheers. --Brad Beattie (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't remember if it was being used at the time, so if it was, my mistake on that. As for unfree, the image is unfree, as it contains the Wikipedia logo, which is a registered trademark of the WMF (and unfree). Hope this clears it up. Either way, I restored for now. ^ demon [omg plz] 00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2007