User talk:Chocolateboy/Archive 1

Welcome
Hiya Chocolateboy :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How to edit a page
 * Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page

Keep contributing! :) Dysprosia 06:36, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome, Dysprosia! chocolateboy 01:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bans and Blocks
Thanks for copyediting the Bans and Blocks page. Some of the text you are fixing was originally written by me, and I really appreciate the corrections. Cheers, Cyan 01:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Thanks for your contributions to that page. chocolateboy 01:45, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Buffy
I noticed that you reverted the edit on the Buffy page, but now it again does not display correctly on my screen. greybeard 21:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi. Didn't mean to screw things up for you. Happy to un-revert with extreme contrition if we can find another way to say italicized-Buffy-apostrophe-s. The Buffy 's (i.e. Buffy-space-apostrophe-s) was wrong, and I assumed all sane browsers could grok Buffy&apos;s AKA Buffy&amp;apos;s. What browser are you using? And what do you see? chocolateboy 02:50, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My browser is Internet Explorer 6.0 it shows Buffy&apos;s. Why is 's wrong?

It displays correctly in my browser. greybeard 17:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just looked at the article again and found other places of space-apostrophe-s two Buffy's, two show's, one high school's and there may have been one more that I am not remembering. They all display correctly in my browser.greybeard 17:34, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that IE6 doesn't render &#39; (&amp;apos;) as an apostrophe? "Buffy's" is OK for the character, but the show name should be italicized in accordance with the style guide. Following an italicized title with an apostrophe is a bit tricky because (as you know) the italics are achieved with apostrophes. Hence this doesn't work: &#39;&#39;Buffy&#39;&#39;&#39;s. The 3 apostrophes before the "s" are are interpreted as the beginning of bold text. Buffy-space-apostrophe-s is wrong. If it's not then we m a y as w ell p ut sp aces anywhere ;) None of the examples you cite are space-apostrophe-s. Just to clarify: I reverted your edit because it had a space before the apostrophe. (BTW: this will probably make more sense if you look at the text in the edit textbox rather than the rendered HTML.) chocolateboy 19:36, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * OK. Checked in IE 5.5. Sad to say it is indeed broken :-( I've changed it to &amp;#39; now. chocolateboy 19:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It appears that you have solved the problem now. I was looking at both the html and the edit textbox for your previous conversations. My only point was that I could live with the s not being in italics as long as the text read correctly rather than &apos;. You found the solution, and I compliment you for it. My limited knowledge of the coding would not have permitted me to find any other solution than puting the space in the text (a solution I could have lived with). I'm glad it is correct now and we have both learned something. greybeard 22:32, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The general solution is to use   tags. Surround the apostrophe with those tags and the wiki software will leave it alone. --fvw* 11:13, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I know that now of course (e.g. ), but I was a tender young newb back then, unschooled in the ways of wiki-fu :-) chocolateboy 13:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I just realised that was 22 Nov 2003. No wonder so much had changed at Buffy since that edit. Oh well, at least I got to be all "help the newbie" at someone who's been around longer than I have, always fun. --fvw* 13:26, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I appreciate the "loyal band of misfit friends" edit on the Buffy page. I take pleasure in the small things, and a concise meeting of minds is a great act of wit. BarkingDoc


 * "loyal band of misfit friends" is better than my actual tweak! Plus you spared my blushes by trimming some of my more wibblesome excursions - 'bloodsucking, light-fearing "lonely ones"' indeed! - so I'm the one who should be thanking you! chocolateboy 21:26, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

LOL. I nearly choked when I saw a link from MKF to Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. :-) Evercat 22:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * ;) glad u like. Thanks for the page! chocolateboy 23:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-

Jossverse
I've never seen the title used anywhere, it's used as frequently as the similarly unknown Whedonverse and under 10% of the frequency as Buffyverse. What's wrong with "terms such as"? :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 20:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's used 4000 times on Google, which I consulted before reverting. If you've never heard it before then (IMHO) you really should stay in more :-) "Terms such as" is odd (to me) when there's only one term cited.


 * chocolateboy 22:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll note that, in addition to being used less frequently than Buffyverse, Whedonverse and Jossverse are inaccurate due to there being original works created by Whedon not associated Buffy, e.g. Firefly. Khanartist 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Despite Firefly ' s celebrated use of the "'verse" suffix ("no power in the 'verse can stop me"), "Jossverse" (like "Whedonverse") almost always refers to the Buffyverse (as a quick Google will confirm): the Firefly universe, in contrast, is self-contained, and therefore seldom verse-worthy. Why suppress this common usage?


 * chocolateboy 22:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that some people use it, I'm just disputing that it's common. 4000 uses on Google compared with well over 40k; comparative Google stats are already on Talk:Jossverse. Trust me, I stay in for Joss quite frequently (I might wanna reword that later), but Buffyverse is the much more common term. And "Terms such as X" is a common enough phrase&hellip; &mdash; OwenBlacker 23:49, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that sounded much less argumentative in Preview. :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 23:50, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * And I'm quite happy with the edit you made already and I only just noticed; sorry for cluttering your Talk: page ;o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 23:51, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards the non-Buffy Whedon works argument myself. I'm a moderator on a BtVS forum, and Jossverse is used occasionally, but Buffyverse is utterly dominant; and typically the reason cited is that Jossverse and Whedonverse have a wider range than just BtVS. Kinitawowi 11:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

-

Islam in France: the headscarf issue
Long discussion with Anthere on the hidjab issue in France moved here.

Brevity is the soul of "I quit"
Long discussion with Jtdirl on the brevity issue in Current Events moved here.

Richard Stallman
See Talk:Richard Stallman. Optim 17:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kylie
You've done some good work on the Kylie Minogue page. Would you consider supporting its application to become a featured article? -> Featured_article_candidates.

131.111.250.45 14:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Administrator?
Chocolateboy, you have done a lot of good work to Wikipedia recently. I want to nominate you for adminship. Do you accept the nomination? --Lst27 23:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks. Yes, I accept the nomination! chocolateboy 11:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, looking at the controversy aroused here, do you mind if I politely decline your offer (for the time being at least)? I really haven't been here that long, and I'd rather build up a bit more goodwill before exposing myself to that kind of feedback. Hope you understand. chocolateboy 12:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. :-) --Lst27 20:51, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice copy edit on Britney Spears. I'll be re-nominating you for Administrator soon, so brace yourself! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :-) chocolateboy 13:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I want to nominate you for adminship. You have been here long enough now (about half a year). Also, the controversies about ChrisDJackson are over, and recently, I&#8217;ve managed a successful campaign for adminship for XJamRastafire. Now I am very experienced at nominating somebody for adminship, and I hope you accept this nomination. If you do, please reply here. --Lst27 23:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've nominated you for adminship at WP:RFA. I think you're doing a great job maintaining Wikipedia, and there's a general policy of making any decent user an admin, so I'm nominating you. I hope you'll accept. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi there - did you notice you've been nominated for adminship at WP:RFA? You have not yet accepted or turned down this nomination. Either way, I urge you to make your intentions known. If you remain "silent" regarding this nomination, it is bound to fail, not without first dragging you through the mud for no good reason. Your response will either put an end to the character bashing (if you decline) or could possibly tip the scales in your favor (if you accept). Cheers, --Woggly 06:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Woggly.


 * Sorry I didn't get back to you. And thanks for your comments, both here and in the vote. In case you didn't spot Zigger's post, I sort of answered (or evaded :-) your question here.


 * Thanks again,
 * chocolateboy 16:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about you. ;-) Do you want to be a sysop? I have this itch to nominate someone, and I couldn't think of anyone else except you. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh heh ;-) No thanks, mate. Thanks for the offer, though! Great work on the Beatles (and Firefox) pages, by the way.

chocolateboy 14:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

London Congestion Charge
Thanks for your kind comments on the humour business. Actually, it did me no good, as I was completely squashed on that issue! Oh well. :) And sorry I did not respond for so long - been away/busy. Thanks again. Nevilley 08:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Miss Kitty Fantastico
It's a general rule on Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, that links should point to exactly what you expect them to link to, based on the linked text.

Some general websites have a policy of linking many words per sentence to external pages, and you have no idea what the link will go to. That's their style. Sometimes Metafilter does this. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia links have to follow a no-surprise "what you get is what you see" policy.

-- 23:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Curps.


 * Please sign your posts properly.


 * Where is this "policy" expounded?


 * chocolateboy 00:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did sign that post. For some reason it left off my username but added only the timestamp. You didn't think I typed in that timestamp by hand, did you?

The policy is manifestly implicitly in use everywhere on Wikipedia, in every link. It may even be explicitly stated in a style guide. It's just the nature of an encyclopedia. Weblogs often use surprise "box-of-chocolates" (in the Forrest Gump sense) links, but Wikipedia isn't a weblog.

-- Curps 00:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You didn't think I typed in that timestamp by hand, did you?




 * The purpose of a link is to entertain. If it can do so without going offsite, then it is inducted into the hyperlink hall of fame. You apparently disagree, but as neither of us has consensus on our side, I suggest we sleep on it till someone else weighs in.


 * I've gone into slightly more detail on the Talk:Miss Kitty Fantastico page.


 * chocolateboy 01:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dashes
I don't understand your reversions on Cyndi Lauper. Why don't you explain them? I've never seen anyone defend hyphens being used incorrectly in place of dashes. Everyking 21:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hiya.


 * I thought I explained them pretty well. I noticed that you didn't explain or justify your controversial "incorrections". Did you read the discussion I referred you to? If so, please take your ndash advocacy up there.


 * I've gone into a little more detail on the Cyndi Lauper Talk page.


 * chocolateboy 22:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've looked over that discussion before, and all I could really find regarding the question at hand was this: "A single spaced hyphen - actually, there's no real reason to flout the rules of good typesetting in this way. If you come across one of these, please feel free to convert it into your preferred dash style from the above list." Which seems to say that I was right to have changed them to dashes. Everyking 22:14, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments on Talk:Cyndi Lauper.


 * chocolateboy 22:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Before you get into another revert war, you should know that there is in fact no "de facto" standard as far as dashes go. Currently all manner of dashes are used. And yes it is still under discussion, but that does not mean you should go and change them. older &ne; wiser 20:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hiya.


 * Before you get into another "revert war" I hope that I can persuade you that the previous advice on dates was inconsistent with Manual of Style. My edit merely maintained consistency.


 * chocolateboy 20:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you are misreading the manual of style on dashes. I replied in more detail on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). older &ne; wiser 20:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

With due respect, all I see here is one person pushing a personal opinion. Susvolans 15:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Please cast your eye over some of the links I provided:


 * Wik, Eloquence, Dori, fabiform, Tarquin, Jamesday, Angela, RickK, grendelkhan, Pcb21, the BBC, h2g2 , Wikipedia policy  , and the vast majority of Wikipedians disagree.


 * chocolateboy 23:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perl
Thanks for fixing up Perl. I wasn't going to let that last bit about "confused/confusing" stand, and you did an excellent job of removing the icky stuff and keeping what's good. --Yath 10:00, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Yath. That's sweet of you. Thanks.


 * chocolateboy 20:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Built-in data types
Thanks for the encouragement. I started doing some more work in Perl taking into account User:Tony Sidaway's suggestions, but my browser crashed before I could save. Rats! --David Iberri | Talk 03:51, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki
Hey Chocolateboy, how does your edit (fixed dab) in Wiki improve the line from the previous version ? Why combine two different meanings of the word into a single sentence ? Jay 14:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jay.


 * The original sentence, give or take a few clauses, read:


 * ''In Maori, Wiki means "weekend" and "Victoria".


 * Your edit replaced the second meaning with a non-sequitur:


 * In Maori Wiki means "weekend". The diminutive form of Wikitoria, the Maori version of Victoria, is a popular Christian name.


 * Eh? Without slack-cutting from the reader, that paragraph is indistinguishable from:


 * In Maori Wiki means "weekend". "Jack", the diminutive form of John, is a popular Christian name.


 * I reinstated the original construction to emphasize the fact that we are referring to the two meanings of "Wiki" in Maori, and not just making idle chitchat :-)


 * If you're saying it reads better as two sentences, then I don't disagree, as long as the topic of the second sentence is made explicit. How about this?


 * In Maori, Wiki means "weekend"; it is also, as the diminutive form of Wikitoria (the Maori version of Victoria), a popular Christian name.


 * chocolateboy 15:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nah.. it doesn't help much ! Why not remove the wiki=weekend usage, its dicdef anyway. Or we need to include every Maori word that looks or sounds like an English word ;) Jay 16:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Aloha!


 * Why not remove the wiki=weekend usage


 * May as well snip the whole thing (which is what I've just done :-)


 * I didn't mind either way. Moriori added the paragraph originally. Eloquence has snipped it before. As you say, it really belongs on wiktionary.


 * chocolateboy 16:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Drbalaji md
As you are mentioned in the relevant subpage, I hope you will be able to present your view on the allegations, particularly regarding sockpuppetry. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I hope you will at least indicate whether you agree with the summary of the arguments against Drbalaji there &mdash; all you need to do is either sign your name where relevant or just tell me you think I misrepresented something. :) Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just remembered that it is required for more than one user to indicate they have attempted to reason with the user in question and failed. As you are the only one other than me who has tried to reason with the user on Talk:Coca-Cola, I believe you're allowed to add your reasoning to my summary of events, as well as your own evidence. Then you just sign at the list of users who certify the basis for the dispute. Of course, if you don't want to, I'm not forcing you or anything. Johnleemk | Talk 08:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at WP:RFM. Just informing you, since other than me, you and Raul seem to be the ones who are always in trouble with Drbalaji. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Britney
No sorry, I don't really have any Britney images. I've been following Madonna's career for a long time now (since 1990), so I've been complining information along the way. Try some of her fan sites, I'm there are a lot. Madonna has a massive and quite loyal fanbase so it's a lot easier to find information that way.

Good Luck!

-- Kassabov

George W. Bush
Your vote needed at George W. Bush.

Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lourdes
You said the information about Lourdes doesn't belong in the lead section of Madonna (entertainer). Did you read my comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer)? What about people who follow a link to Lourdes Leon Ciccone (as I did), get redirected to the Madonna article, and have no idea that the two are related? (I knew, but not everyone will.) They'll never read halfway through the article to find the information that she's her daughter buried in the middle of the section on Ray of Light. - dcljr 18:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read your comment on the talk page.


 * The fact that one article is broken doesn't justify breaking another. Here are three ways to prevent the situation you describe 1) reinstate and expand the old stub 2) delete the Lourdes Leon Ciccone article as a) she isn't Madonna and b) she isn't famous 3) redirect it to Madonna (entertainer) rather than Madonna (entertainer).


 * chocolateboy 13:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... "breaking" seems a bit melodramatic. I don't know or care enough to do option 1; option 2 seems like a step backwards (what's the big deal with having a small stub for Madonna's kid? [rhetorical question]); and unlike mentioning non-obvious redirects in the lead section, I didn't think redirecting to sections was part of Wikipedia policy (or ability, for that matter &mdash; linking, yes, but not redirecting). So I'm leaving things as they are. - dcljr 05:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

MadonnaFan
Long discussion with User:MadonnaFan on Madonna's career achievements moved here.

Tony Blair
cross-posted


 * As has been explain countless times before, on TB, MT, PMotUK, and others, Prime Ministers do not have "terms" stemming from General Elections. Margaret Thatcher only had one term. Tony Blair only had one term. The use of the word "term" is wrong and inaccurate, and highly misleading. See Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, if you really want a reference.
 * As for dashes, a combination of MoS policy and standard practice on Wikipedia is that it is fine to start with either hyphens or dashes, as one prefers, and to convert from hyphens to dashes if you wish to do so, but is certainly not fine to perform destructive conversion of specific dashes into non-specific hyphens.
 * James F. (talk) 15:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. I see from a glance at the policy pages that you quoted at me that you have, in fact, not made any edits to them, and yet speak to others in sinister terms of a "vocal minority" of people who are evidently dark forces fighting against the army of the light, seemingly valiantly led by you. This characterisations are rather unhelpful.
 * James F. (talk) 15:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see from a glance at the policy pages that you quoted at me that you have, in fact, not made any edits to them

You're mistaken, though I'm confused by your argument. Would you prefer me to escalate this debate by removing the inflammatory ("actually, there's no real reason to flout the rules of good typesetting in this way"), minority-imposed, and largely ignored material from Manual of Style (dashes)? I've provided copious evidence to suggest that the dash policy has been railroaded by a vocal minority. Please consult the dash discussion above and the statistical evidence provided here before reaching for the "unhelpful" water pistol.

I've gone into more detail on your talk page.

chocolateboy 17:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mirrors and forks
You recently edited these pages. So you know, it is currently going through a change of format. Please refer to the top page Mirrors and forks, for the current instructions. Thanks! JesseW 13:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hiya, JesseW. I did take a look there first, but couldn't see anything apropos. Will take a look again, ta. chocolateboy 14:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Spotted your fix. Thanks. chocolateboy 15:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

demosoftware.net
My edit appears to have been corrupted. The database must of had a hic-up when I edited that page, showing an error message instead of my edit. Anyway, thanks for reverting the problem. Norman Rogers 13:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Aha! Thanks for the info. Seen quite a bit of backend flakiness myself recently... Ah, growing pains! :-) chocolateboy 14:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Logical Quotation
Hi, chocolateboy. I put the period inside the quotation mark on Jimmy Wales because he's an American, and usually American English is used on American people and topics articles. :) Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 22:25, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's try to stick to the MoS. :-)


 * chocolateboy 22:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the form Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". may be logical, but in formal American usage it is simply incorrect. Anyone used to doing copyediting (or teaching writing) in the States has a hard time remembering Wikipedia style on that. (I can remember not to change other peoples', but I have a hard time remembering to use it myself...) &#8212;Tkinias 15:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Public displays of disaffection"
I thought it was a good turn of phrase for what I meant, but I thought it might draw some comment. If you can put it another way you are welcome to do so, I'm not married to it. Nice to meet you by the way. (Richard Nixon mask) Pedant 22:39, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)


 * Hiya.


 * "Heh :-)" means I like it by the way :-)


 * chocolateboy 22:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Message
You're absolutely right. Colour me embarrassed, and colour the message moved. Thanks for the heads-up. - Nauvoo 17:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Clitoris
Hi, I noted your recent revert to Clitoris. Please read the talk page on this; some of us are temporarily agreeing to a period of linking to the image as part of trying to reach an agreement that satisfies all parties. There is no intention to permanently remove the inline image; this agreement expires first thing Monday am. Please take this into account when viewing edits on that page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tony.


 * Sorry. I'm not interested in engaging in another 32K discussion on this subject. It's already been discussed to death. We don't censor pictures on the grounds of inadequacy or imperfection. The fact that a handful of you have reached "consensus" is hardly relevant to the vast majority of readers and contributors to the article who have already voted against the solution you have adopted (the fact that it is temporary doesn't make it any more palatable). Please see discussions/polls passim. If you wish to challenge this decision, a poll is the best way to do it; a pact involving a mere 3 or 4 editors is not.


 * chocolateboy 10:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alas, I'm beginning to suspect you're right. In which case we'll just have to deal with the revert wars as long as the page exists. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reference desk
To the melody of the Mariah Carey song: "All I want for christmas, is a Wake Me Up Before You Hypnagogo." I think it's a distinct improvement. --fvw *  17:46, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)


 * ;-) chocolateboy 18:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Fionaapple.jpg
It is very common for record labels to distribute promotional packets for artists to advertise their work; usually these include promotional music, a biography on paper, and some sort of 8x10 glossy promotional photo. These photos are usually frame in white and at the bottom text is placed identifying the artist and the label they are signed with. This photograph of Fiona Apple was sent to media representatives (IE: magazines, DJ's, record stores) with the express intent of them utilizing the photo to further publicize the artist and the artist's album. This image was likely reprinted by the magazine you cite for the very fact that it is intended to be reprinted without credit or royalty. Providing it is not used for profit, it is indefinately redistributable. Having said that, I appreciate your attentiveness to detail, but I vehementantly assure you that I am not wantonly doing google image searches and then re-copying found images into Wikipedia. Had that been my actions, I would surely have found a more attractive of Ms. Apple. If you would be kind enough to let me know which images are in question (that I have uploaded) I will do my best to cite their points of origion. Pacian 05:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * This image was likely reprinted by the magazine you cite for the very fact that it is intended to be reprinted without credit or royalty.


 * i-D, like most fashion magazines, doesn't reproduce publicity shots, particularly not for cover stars. It commissions its own shoots.


 * Providing it is not used for profit, it is indefinately redistributable.


 * You do realize that when it comes to matters of law, we can't just make stuff up? :-) We have templates for images that fit the de facto Wikipedia fair use criteria: (Template:Logo) and  (Template:Albumcover) for instance. We don't have one for publicity shots. Bear in mind that it's easy to trace the copyright holder for an album cover (by consulting the liner notes) or a logo (the company); that's not the case with uncredited publicity stills. We make free with attack dogs when it comes to the uncredited redistribution of Wikipedia content; we should show the same diligence and probity when distributing the content of others.


 * If you would be kind enough to let me know which images are in question (that I have uploaded) I will do my best to cite their points of origion.


 * I only checked a few, but they all seemed to be untagged. Did you get a chance to take a look at Untagged images? At any rate, it's not a question of where they're from; it's a question of whether the copyright holder is prepared to allow their images to be freely distributed. See Image:Kkramer300dpi.jpg .jpg for an example of the kind of wrangling needed to free a publicity shot.


 * chocolateboy 08:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

STOP CALLING ME A SPAMMER!
You're getting very close to a personal attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You realize a) this isn't AOL; and b) this is a public forum? :-)


 * chocolateboy 07:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you realise I can block you for making personal attacks? Do you also realise that shifting my comments around on the talk page is extremely bad form and this can also get you blocked? Do you realise you can get blocked for 24 hours for reverting the three revert rule? Lastly, do you realise I'm a long time user who is not a part of AOL or the GNAA, who has largely contributed to 3 featured articles and who is currently an administrator? I tell you this last bit so you know that I'm not likely to spam the site or commit acts of vandalism.

I also suggest you read Neutral point of view. Other than that, have a nice day. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you realise I can block you for making personal attacks?


 * I realize that you can try. I encourage you to do so, as you're clearly poorly qualified to wield such superpowers.


 * Do you also realise that shifting my comments around on the talk page is extremely bad form and this can also get you blocked?


 * I thought I was doing you a favour by placing your comments in chronological order. No offence was meant. (Obviously) feel free to disorder them. And (just as obviously) feel free to attempt to ban me from Wikipedia for this... er... transgression.


 * Do you realise you can get blocked for 24 hours for reverting the three revert rule?


 * Lastly, do you realise I'm a long time user who is not a part of AOL or the GNAA, who has largely contributed to 3 featured articles and who is currently an administrator?


 * Do you realize how embarrassing this looks when you say it out loud? :-)


 * chocolateboy 08:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Your opinion is noted. However I do notice you are still messing about with the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do not shift my talk text around. I will block you next time I see you do that. As it stands, you've made my text extremely misleading on the GNAA talk page. Please don't think I'm kidding. I will do it. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please don't vandalize my comments (as in this edit). The correct way to reply is to quote, not interlineate. As mentioned above, I would love to see you try to block me for making a discussion more readable.


 * chocolateboy 06:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey dude, are you the only person on Wikipedia who can interfere with a talk page? You're the truest defender they ever had elsewhere but here you're the king of refactoring.Dr Zen 12:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey. What's refactoring got to do with vandalism ? I suggest you take a look at the Talk page link I provided:


 * Do: use indenting to keep the conversation straight
 * Don't: misrepresent other people
 * Don't: edit someone's words to change their meaning


 * chocolateboy 13:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enrol
re: Tony Blair

enroll vs enrol -- is this a US vs UK spelling issue? Davenbelle 20:49, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. My mistake. I thought I'd accidentally reverted a "correction" ("enroll" -> "enrol") in one of my edits, and was attempting to tidy up after myself.


 * Google seems to prefer "enroll", so please - be my guest.


 * chocolateboy 22:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did you call my edit - "Spam" ?
Hello Chocolateboy, But if you wish to revert my edit on the Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America (See [|Diff]on reasonable ground then you may. However, please don't comment to say the edit is "Spam" when it is not. Squash 22:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Squash.


 * It's non-notable GNAA publicity. I'm not accusing you of being a vanity spammer. This, however, is clearly vanity spam. If I, Rusty Kuro5hin, or CowboyNeal added it, it would still be vanity spam. The "vanity" in question belongs to the GNAA, not (necessarily) the editor.


 * chocolateboy 23:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chocolateboy, no, it's really not. This is the second user who is not part of the GNAA to tell you this. I'd suggest you start listening. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It maybe sorta of vanity - true that, but you used the words spam in addition to that - which was the problematic part. One has to allow to some extent a degree of open-ness to the article. As a result of this the questionable section has been removed (except for the external link for the google query of GNAA on slashdot. Problem solved :) Squash 03:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good catch
Thanks for the note. -- Infrogmation 19:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Elton John
I have put Elton John as a request for comment. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen
I could be totally misreading Dr Zen, but it looks to me as if his current spate of edit warring on Clitoris may be a deliberate attempt to get that article protected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (He's better off not touching Clitoris, it's too sensitive for him too handle properly. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)

Grace Kelly
FYI, I restored the ((PromoPhoto)) tag on the Grace Kelly image, and gave my reasoning on Image talk:AmazinGrace.jpg. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter
Hi. Good work on the Coulter vs. McKeown thing. You sure have a talent for staying calm.

Could we make the links from the CBC site, rather than from the Michael Moore site? I'd like to refer to the Sticks and Stones segment on The Fifth Estate directly, than tunneling through Moore. But whatever you think is okay, I'm getting bored with Coulter. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. You do realise that if you leave nice comments like this on my talk page I'll be forced to leave Wikipedia? Please reconsider, man, before pursuing this reckless course of constructive editing and good-natured discussion further :-)


 * As for the link thing: good idea!


 * chocolateboy 22:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sage
Thanks for letting me know about that. I've had Sage for about a year now, I've just not used it that much. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 23:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notice
This is a formal notice that I have filed a Request for Arbitration in the matter of Chocolateboy v Benapgar. Please visit the Requests for arbitration and add your statement. --Ben 1 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

Look, it's not like you haven't seen this notice. If you do not want to respond to the RFA at all just write "I do not wish to make a statement." --Ben 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Image Tag
Im confused. Dont you see a link to the page from which I downloaded the image? Why did you put back the 'unverified' sign at ? Journalist 21:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops. You're right. I've changed it to Unknown . Thanks.


 * chocolateboy 19:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA
Will you please stop removing EVERY DAMN BIT of information in that page? Firstly, you replaced the subst'ed vfd tag with vfd - very bad of you to do this, because the practice is to use subst to reduce server load. You removed factual information without taking it to the talk page. You also removed admin warnings in comments. So, I've used the rollback function.

Stop camping on the article. I realise you are trying to make it better and stopo it growing crufty, but you cannot effectively half all editing to it by reverting all the information that goes in there. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you even bother to look at the edits before reverting? At least two editors think the sig is spam/overkill/redundant, and I gave my reasoning for the removal of the redundant sentence. As for the "Ta bu shi da yu thinks this", "Ta bu shi da yu thinks that" comments you've scattered about: the article is about the GNAA, not about "yu".


 * chocolateboy 05:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Those are legitimate warnings to GNAA members or anyone else who decide to try to game the system through various means. I will be blocking people who do things like that, and these are the warnings. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't own the article, and what you may or may not do will have to follow due Wikipedia process, which, so far in this discussion, you've neglected to do. At any rate, your intentions do not belong, commented or otherwise, in an article on the GNAA.


 * chocolateboy 06:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk page
Please do not move around my comments on Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America. Also, please do not call my edits "vandalism", as this is not assuming good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please grow up.


 * chocolateboy 23:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Oh, fuck you."


 * chocolateboy 01:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

For this I am deeply sorry, and apologise unreservedly. However, this does not give you the right to make personal attacks yourself. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. And that crack I made about "lamest tantrum" was, well... lame.


 * However, I've both asked and told you about interlineating vs quoting (we discussed it above). It's not difficult to apply the golden rule of doing unto your fellow Wikipedians as they do unto you. If you want to see why I disapprove of interlined comments, see here.


 * chocolateboy 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I understand. The reason I added the comment was because GNAA members (I believe) were readding the Wikipedia material and causing disruption. I was going to leave the comment as a warning about the block for a while - mainly to the GNAA members who were copying and pasting the material out of the edit history and back into the article, and only to be disruptive. I was going to leave it in there for a while. I also added my name so they could know who to address their comments to! I'm sorry if it caused some upset. Also, with inline answering, that's fairly standard when trying to follow conversations. I'd prefer it if you didn't move around my comments, but I see why you were doing this.
 * As for the GNAA logo - I added this because if you check many of their crapfloods, this is what they use to "sign" their crap floods. I felt that the GNAA site can't really be trusted to keep material unchanged, and besides it would help those who want to find out about the GNAA and identify who is crapflooding them.
 * With the logo, I don't actually think it's trademarked. As for tagging it wrongly: yes, that was a mistake and it got changed afterwards to use logo. I'm sorry I made the crack about hearsay and verifiability, and I'm also sorry my language included things like HTH, HAND, etc. I was feeling frustrated by what I perceived as your editing style. I've since seen your edit history, and can also see that you are not a troll, so I also apologise for this.
 * For the record, I was gathering an evidence page, but have since deleted this. I felt you should know, and apologise for not assuming good faith.
 * The passage on anonymity (spelling?) I still feel should be kept and, with respect, believe that the example you gave as a counter-example does not necessarily follow.
 * I'd like to start afresh on this whole thing. So far I've had to deal with the 6th VfD (controversial because I was a lot stricter in the vote), and got hot under the collar about being called a spammer. It's no excuse for my rudeness. For the record, I asked to be blocked for 24 hours because of my personal attack: this happened but I got unblocked. I edited anonymously for some time after this. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu was addressing every point you made under the relevant section. Plus, removing his comments addressing the situation can be considered vandalism, which was what my warning/revert was all about. See. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)




 * removing his comments addressing the situation can be considered vandalism


 * I did no such thing. Your track record on the article is far from impeccable ("Because I had no clue yall had a link to the sig in the first place.")


 * chocolateboy 01:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Free hosting
Hey Chocolateboy, I'd been meaning to chuck out the crappy links from that page for ages. Good job. The only suggestion I'd make is to make some note on the talk page, like this. This approach has been pretty succesful for me, and has even (after a few tries) stopped excess links from coming back. But mostly I like to spread the love. Keep it up, brenneman (t) (c) 07:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. And thanks for the tip! chocolateboy 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane image
Hi Chocolate, btw, the image is absolutely not a copyvio, I took the photo myself in a London pub courtyard years ago. More power to your inclusionist arm. Coqsportif 09:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good to hear. It's a great pic!


 * Bah. Didn't realize it's a fake sign. And providing some information about the location of the pub would help to dispel the consensus that it's a fake photograph.


 * chocolateboy 16:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

new contributor - a couple of questions
Hi there chocolateboy!

I've been using wiki for study and research for my writing work, and finally decided to join in and add something back instead of just taking from this great resource.

One of my favourite genres of music is the whole mashup/cut-up thing and I added (and tidied) a few things on the "bastard pop" page as my first attempt at wiki-ing... I was a bit disappointed to find most of it has now vanished!

So I thought you could be my first port of call (on hopefully a long wiki contributing adventure) and let me know how it *really* works - is it that people basically have their own articles/entries to oversee as they see fit and only include what they think is right? I know the wiki idea is that it's an organic process of addition, with prudent editing, but is that how it really works?

I'm currently writing a book on the whole bootleg/bastard pop/mashup thing for a major publisher and was rather surprised at some of the ommissions from the more recent (last few years) parts of the otherwise excellent article and would love to be able to add a little more.

Look foward to hearing from you when you get the chance,

Reenie

username Reenietaneka


 * Hi, Reenie.


 * Welcome to Wikipedia!


 * I added (and tidied) a few things on the "bastard pop" page as my first attempt at wiki-ing... I was a bit disappointed to find most of it has now vanished!


 * Can you remember what you added/tidied? The main reason (pretty much the only reason really) why things are removed from that article is because they qualify as vanity spam. Because the barrier of entry is so low for bastard pop, it's very easy and tempting for bootleggers to treat the article as free advertising. As a result of this, I often remove links to non-notable bootlegs and bootleggers fairly promptly. The downside of this is that editors like yourself may occasionally have a good faith addition removed without knowing what's going on. There's quite a bit of discussion about this on the article's talk page, incidentally.


 * is it that people basically have their own articles/entries to oversee as they see fit and only include what they think is right?


 * It is and it isn't. All articles on Wikipedia belong to everyone and can be freely edited by anyone. That's a core principle of Wikipedia, and indeed of most wikis. Moreover, Wikipedia counsels against editors squatting on articles, and cultivating the delusion that somehow they, and they alone, own the article. However, in practice, some articles tend to be dominated by a small number of editors (and in some cases by one editor). A large number of our featured articles are labours of love in which a handful of editors have slaved over the article to get it just so. Conversely, there are a large number of neglected articles that appear to be desperately in need of a champion, someone to lavish a little TLC on them, even if that occasionally means challenging and questioning edits that might previously have passed unremarked. In other words, taking no pride in articles and taking too much pride are both discouraged. Taking an interest in an article without investing so much ego in it that it damages the article: that's the ideal compromise. After all, it's inevitable that we'll all have to stop editing one day :-)


 * I know the wiki idea is that it's an organic process of addition, with prudent editing, but is that how it really works?


 * It works like that on some articles. Some articles interest no-one and hardly ever get edited. Some articles are pretty much complete gems, and don't cry out for substantial changes. Some articles are constantly being vandalized and repaired, and undergo few net changes. The process you mentioned can best be seen on articles about unfolding news events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and the 2005 civil unrest in France.


 * I'm currently writing a book on the whole bootleg/bastard pop/mashup thing for a major publisher and was rather surprised at some of the ommissions from the more recent (last few years) parts of the otherwise excellent article and would love to be able to add a little more.


 * Sounds great. Go for it!


 * chocolateboy 19:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoreditch
Yes. A fine collaboration. :) Mrsteviec 17:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)