User talk:Digby Tantrum/Archive 2

Watchmen
Did I just imagine something I didn't? Oh god, I'm don't drink so what the hell... Alientraveller 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Geoff Smith
Actually, up to this revision, I think the point was to show the team had been much more successful. Unfortunately, the team's wonderful performance in 1996 and average performance in 2007 meant that, once these were included, the effect was lost! Were you ever involved with this Olympiad business, or did you just stumble across the page randomly? Andymc 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Drax
I would humbly like to offer a suggestion to you in the future. When working with the articles that are written by others, I would suggest to you that you should consider being sensitive to those who contribute. While you are no doubt familliar with all the nuances of Wikipedia, not everyone else may be your equal in that arena. I suspect that some of the contributors may be more expert in the topics they are writing about then they are specifically in Wikipedia itself. This is where your positive leadership may be both beneficial and encouraging. I think that you'll find that the wanton deletion of content/photographs may actually lead to discourage participation from new contributors outright, which I would think is undesirable overall. Please consider explaining what changes or reequirements that you desire the contributor to add to their content before just deleting their content. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobHoitt (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry you felt I was insensitive in my handling of the image of Drax. But the plain fact of the matter is that one encounters so many images which risk copyright abuse to varying degrees — a vital concern in an encyclopaedia which is intended to provide free content — that there is simply not the time to fix every image file which is lacking, especially when one is not the uploader.  Copyright is taken seriously around here; in the end, it's better to err on the side of caution, so I deemed removing the image from the article was the best course.


 * However, I would point out two things to you: A) as attested by your talk page, I left you a note with links to relevant guidance on what to do, which would give you ample time to make whatever file modifications needed to be made; B) the image upload page also provides you with stern warnings about what must be done, with links to relevant guidance on how to do it. Moreover, the latter also lets you know what can happen to non-free images for which the necessary rationales, etc, are missing (ie. they will be deleted).  As such, it's difficult to see that you've been ill-served in terms of having information made available to you.  Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark, I am now at a loss. You have now marked my page as having questionable 'notability.' I have provided four specific sources in which the character of Drax has appeared. (The character of Harriet Jones for example has had half the appearances in the Doctor Who universe but (like Drax) because of her impact on the overall lore, has a page of her own.) Drax may not be as popular of a character in the modern lore, but popularity has never been a measurement, as far as I can determine, for eligibility for inclusion. RobHoitt 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rob, the addition of a notability tag is not necessarily a crisis point for an article. It simply marks an article as lacking in certain respects, the proper response to which is to address those concerns so that the article doesn't remain vulnerable to being turned into a redirect or nominated for deletion, say.  In particular, it has the potential to attract the attention of editors who are in a position to make the necessary repairs.  Removing the tag doesn't help the article.


 * Now, allow me to explain why I tagged the article: characters of fictional works can earn their own articles if an encyclopaedic treatment of them would lead to the original work becoming too long (see WP:FICT). So, for example, there's a strong case to write articles about individual incarnations of the Doctor (leading characters with a ton of coverage in independent sources).  The current problem with Drax is that there's currently little to say about him that couldn't be slipped into articles about the handful of stories in which he appears.  And this is a key point: encyclopaedic articles about fictional topics need to be able to assert their notability via significant coverage in sources independent of the subject (ie. something reasonably substantial and exterior to those story appearances, whether it be media coverage, treatment in academic texts, being referenced in non-Who works, whatever).


 * And this leads me to a further problem with the article: as per WP:WAF, an encyclopaedic treatment of fiction offers a real world perspective. There's currently little along those lines in Drax (Time Lord); it's written as a very brief character biography, with a couple of notes on spin-off appearances.  There's nothing on character conception, the how and why of how the character was developed, production notes or anything that explores the aspect of Drax being the product of a creative process. If an editor could introduce properly sourced inclusions along those lines, that might go some way to justifying notability.


 * I've reintroduced the tag. Please don't remove it again; God knows, the article needs all the help it can get.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks....
for keeping a level head, and helping the situation at Jonathan King - good luck with your continued efforts, and I wanted to re-assure you that I'm just striving for a fair and balanced article - I sense you are too... cheers, Purples 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia
Pleace, stop the vandalizing of National Liberation War of Macedonia from anonimous user, wich have been blocked some times lately under other IP-s!Jingby 11:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I am not currently in a position to tell the difference between one edit and another on this one. As it stands, it appears multiple IDs were edit-warring over this; which is why they've been blocked.  I hope the remaining editors are able to put the article into whatever shape it's supposed to be.


 * Next time, if you feel an article is being vandalised, seek administrative assistance. This link"Vandalism_in_progress"should be of use.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is an open source program about the subject spam link?
Please, see the discussion on Harmonic analysis. Thank you.User:Prof.Maque 20:53, 8 august 2007 (UTC)

Oopsie poopsie.....
Hi Mark - i thought i'd let you know that User:Oopsie poopsie has moved over to User:Oopsie Poopsie - I've copied the talk page over to the new spot, but perhaps this was hasty because the user and I are clearly in conflict (and I'm unsure as to the policy recommendations in this case) - would you mind taking a look? - thanks...... Purples 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

doh! - i'm thinking now that I should have used the Page move to preserve the history etc. - i'll leave well alone to avoid making things worse, but any help you could offer would be great.... Purples 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear as to why I should get involved, other than to say that interfering with another's userspace is often not a good idea. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess i'm asking for advice about a) whether or not the talk page copy is the right thing to do - I was thinking that other editors should be able to see the talk history... and b) if I've done it correctly / how to do it correctly if it is the right thing to do.... thanks..... Purples 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is something you should have been discussing with the user concerned beforehand. Or perhaps with a sufficiently neutral third party who happens to be available at that time of night/early morning (BST). That's all I have to say on the matter. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...ok - i thought you were a neutral third party! - sorry if this has annoyed you - i won't bother you further... cheers - Purples 08:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack
Right, the fact that it's mentioned twice... I figured it was relevant to both "sexual orientation" (dealing with displayed action and writer/portrayer intent) and to "cultural impact" (dealing with external perception of the character) but it could be removed from the latter.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Clyde97
Hello! Thanks for the comment you left me. I've read Wikipedia for a long time, but I'm new to editing. What can I do about Someguy0830's edits to the Toonami programs page? People have tried to discuss his changes with him, but he unilaterally decided a bunch of the content was useless, despite the fact that lots of other people found it useful, and just deleted a bunch of stuff. If the formatting didn't fit Wikipedia (I'm not very knowledgable on formatting yet), that's fine, but he should help with the formatting then instead of just deleting the content. His edits don't seem reasoned considering he was mainly taking out stuff that other folks found useful just because he didn't find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clyde97 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't see how removing a bunch of useful content is bringing the page to encyclopedic standards though. A bunch of people had been working on that page over the past few days working to add good content and bring it inline with encyclopedic standards themselves. However, he simply deleted a bunch of the work. If he wants to help, that's great! But if thinks big changes need to be made shouldn't he bring it up on the discussion page instead of just going in and deleting a bunch of other people's work? His actions don't seem to be in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clyde97 (talk • contribs)

Jonathan King page
It seems Purples has managed to attain his/her wishes on this page. It's now deliciously tabloid! I love the polite, well mannered approach he/she has for including the most amazing passages (masturbation, buggery, wow!).

As a matter of clarity on the POV issue, is there a Wikipedia standard? I would have thought it's dangerous to include some opinion articles without others and that's a very slippery slope.

Should I find alternative articles such as the appeal ones and supportive views and add them?

Also there must be a load of negative commentary on the music which was awful and then I suppose if we add that we should include some of the positives.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oopsie Poopsie (talk • contribs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oopsie poopsie (talk • contribs)

King's reply to my question about Record Producer... Oopsie poopsie 08:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Re:JK is it true you were in fact acquitted at your trial? - 2007/08/10 08:34

You can read about it in the Biography section (48,878 have so far!) or get Earth To King which has Autobiographical Video Blogs - I think the Record Producer stuff is No38, with clippings and cuttings from the newspapers.

To be honest - a friend said to me "You ought to put up the letter from Jimi Hendrix thanking you for introducing him to Hey Joe - that would prove you turned him onto the song" and I replied WHY? I'm too busy living life in the present to bother wasting time proving the past.

re: 220.239.56.240
Those two IPs could be the same person, though the 220. IP seems to be static - that one's history is almost entirely focused on this "herostratus" thing. If it keeps acting up, it might find itself with a nice long block, if that's the case... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting point - I hadn't really dug that deep. Somewhere in the one IP's ramblings, it mentioned something about a vandal group - it might be someone with a bunch of friends acting like idiots. You may want to post something to WP:ANI and ask for some admins to keep an eye on things. I'll watchlist Herostratus myself, and see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Openly "___"
Jack's not just the first openly bisexual character, he's the first character in the entire series to be anything other than straight, that was the point of that phrase.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DR. Who--British vs. American usage
Message noted, and as I said, you'll get no argument from me. Ted Watson 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Derivative work
No. Notwithstanding that the source appeared marginal at first glance -- obviously not a professional source on the subject; the writer doesn't know the singular for "media" -- these are not comparable situations. I admit I was imprecise with "medium", but a painting is not a literary work and is not directly related to it. The case that page discussed is a better example: a sculpture made from a photo. The two can easily be said to be substantially similar. But a painting and a novel? The only way we can be at all certain the painting is even based on the novel is often the title. Even so: what receives the copyright is an arrangement of words, not an image, and there is a wide variation on the images that might fit a description from a text.

None of which had any bearing on the question anyway. Whether or not Nasmith's paintings are derivative works, they're included here under a fair-use theory. The point isn't so much that he might or might not own the entire copyright on them, but that we don't have a clear license. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lazarus Experiment
My contention is that although you CAN put a spoiler in, there's no reason that you HAVE to. Let's, for example, take the entry on the first Harry Potter book. I suppose one could make an argument for adding a Continuity section and spoiling what happens in latter books, including the devastating revelation in the final book that Voldemort turns out to be David Beckham's crazy grandfather. Would it be censorship if I removed that? I think it would merely be sensible. Or, to use an example from Doctor Who itself, look at the entry for "The Unquiet Dead." The Continuity section manages to simply note that the Bad Wolf story arc is explained in "The Parting of the Ways." The article's just fine without revealing that Rose did this or that with the TARDIS. It seems reasonable, then, to mention the events that we've been going back and forth about in the episodes when they actually occur instead of at the earliest possible opportunity. Reasonable to me, at least.

In conclusion, I think you can have very good, very complete articles that don't go out of their way to spoil future developments. Drysarcasm 22:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make me a censor just because I think something shouldn't be in an article and you think it should. Drysarcasm 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to focus on an entry that you have been to recently, let's look at "The Satan Pit." The Continuity section there alludes to the events of "Doomsday" without spelling them out. How did you manage to let such vagueness slide? Is the article incomplete because it doesn't go into specific detail about Rose's fate? Drysarcasm 23:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that you cannot have a section of an article which deals in stories other than the eponym without revealing details from those other stories. I agree, but the level of detail that winds up being revealed is certainly up for debate. We just happen to prefer different levels. This isn't a censorship issue. It's a simple matter of taste. Drysarcasm 06:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I am probably going to solicit another opinion on this issue. Drysarcasm 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Assume Good Faith
Quoth you on 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC):
 * "I noticed this comment you made on :SilverTork's[sic] discussion page:"Over the last couple days, Digby has been a busy person adding and revising the article, albeit nothing was really negative, so perhaps the communication to him to state I was concerened about deleting things without explanation was enough."I can't help but think I've been somewhat misrepresented by the part in bold. All my edits on Drax (Doctor Who) have come with edit summaries; not only that, but when asked, I've taken some effort to explain things to you.


 * You might want to take some time to read this guideline: Assume good faith. It can be an enormous help in Wikipedia transactions. Especially, for example, when someone does something you don't like or don't understand. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)"

Quoth Myself on 04:00, 06 August 2007 (UTC):
 * "...I think that you'll find that the wanton deletion of content/photographs may actually lead to discourage participation from new contributors outright, which I would think is undesirable overall. Please consider explaining what changes or reequirements that you desire the contributor to add to their content before just deleting their content..."

Mark, I honestly feel we have a dispute of how we feel the article should proceed. Under the guideline Resolving_disputes, I did inidcate to you that I felt you were deleting things without explanation and that I questioned the professionalism of your actions. (This was specifically with the photograph's deletion.) I was obviuously upset at how you acted and told you as much. Once I did so, I think you gave me a somewhat condesending and terse explanation which appeared to me to be given because I demanded it, not because you had any deliberate feelings of stewardship. Further, I took grave exception to your statement, "God knows, the article needs all the help it can get." Specifically because I feel that it was a comment directed specifically to me as a newer contributor in this community. While I am unsure if it violates WP:NPA, I still feel it was meant to be hurtful and therefore unprofessional. After that point, I requested SilkTork's advice under the guideline Editor_assistance in dealing with what I believe was an unresolved dispute on our mutual parts. As you saw my comments at the end of that discussion, you will have no doubt also read the rest of the comments, and will also see his advice to me.

Perhaps I was hoping that as you were so keen to quote policies to me that you might follow the suggestions in the guideline Resolving_disputes, but since you hadn't seen fit to, I elected to be the bigger person and do so myself. I merely responded to SilkTork to thank him, let him know that his advise was helpful, and to offer to buy him a pint on the next chance that he had to visit my side of the Atlantic. In fact, had you not written to me directly, I would have said nothing more to you on the matter.

The bottom line is that while you may have free reign to edit whatever you like, you do not enjoy the same liberties when dealing with the feelings of others, if you are perceived as condescending to others, you may elicit stong feelings in return, as you have in this event. Frankly, I have found the limited time that I have to contribute to Wikipedia being needlessly depleted by this inane arguement, so I am seriously considering that if I am to face additional arguements such as this one, if I want to engage in this arena any further. I don't want to argue or war with you, or anyone else but I feel that everyone, including myself is entitled to at least a reasonable amount of professional behaviour.

All that being said, can we end this now? Let's face the facts: You and I don't agree. I also don't think we will agree, but it seems to me to be very counterproductive on our mutually going back and forth about it. So let's end this matter here and go forth on our merry and divergent ways. Cheers! RobHoitt 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Slusho
I understand that there is no consensus as of yet as to the linking "Slusho.jp" in the Cloverfield article - as I see on the article's history page, there as been something of a back-and-forth going on between those who add the link and those who remove it. But I feel there is a valid reason for adding it and I have stated that reason on the articles discussion page. I am all for consensus regarding this and any other article. all I ask is that my argument be given a fair hearing and a valid response before my entry is reverted. The obvious back and forth over this issue means that consensus has not yet been reached, that there are other users who hold the same viewpoint as I, and that I am free to make my arguments and my edits. Thank you.

--Qwerty7412369 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Doctor (Doctor Who)
It's the same editing pattern the last time Movellon got involved on this article: three reverts are made by an ID, then another ID takes over for the next three reverts. If you recall the discussion from last time around, Movellon and the IPs arguing for Human-Time Lord hybrid had almost identical reasons for wanting that in the infobox. To my mind, this is highly suspicious, and smacks of some kind of puppetry. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the same impression, and I'm wondering if he stopped because he thought we'd caught on. Well, either way, as long as he's stopped. You know, it really seems odd to me that someone could get so up in arms about such a minor thing, and especially on this side of the issue. I can to some extent understand the fans who hate the decision to make him half-human in the movie (wasn't a fan back then so can't understand it personally), but those who are so far on the other side they won't accept anything else are a bit harder to comprehend. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did broach the subject of the IPs with Movellon last time, soon after which the IPs went strangely quiet (it's a split thread, so you'd have to dip into my archives to get the full exchange). If we've managed to send out a message to whoever's doing this, then it saves the trouble of filling out a report.  It's certainly an odd thing to war about.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like all of this would be sufficient evidence for a check use request, but I agree that we don't need to fill out a report right now. The important thing is that he stops. Of course, if he starts again, then we can report it (and possibly for 3rr violations at the same time). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it looks like he's at it again . If this repeats the same process from before, then it's probably time for a Check User. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sev Wide Web spoiler
OK... You're the third person to tell me that a spoiler message regarding the death of Lance is not required on Sev Wide Web. I read the guideline page and still cannot figure out why it shouldn't be there. Please help me understand this. Thanks. Admiral Memo 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Working together
Thank you for your calm and thoughful style of editing at the Jonathan King article. This surely has helped the editors there work together on this article's sensitive topic. It's been a pleasure watching the article take shape as editors there began working together. Take care, FloNight 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

re; IP 24.141.150.255
I've given some responses at my talkpage. I'm off to bed, now. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Who chronology
Thanks for weighing in on that issue. The individual in question promptly reverted the page yet again mere minutes after your warning, and has received a 24-hour block. Dr.Who 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Torchwood_Series2_Cast.jpg
Thanks for the heads up. I am not sure if I've adequately responded to the tag yet though as this is the first time I've encountered one. --GracieLizzie 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be the condition in which I uploaded it, am somewhat confused by the new uploading system. Thanks for adding the tag for me.--GracieLizzie 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Macht is Jewish?
I'm curious about your noting in the intro to the article on Gabriel Macht that the actor is Jewish. Is this kind of thing commonly done in Wikipedia... noting the putative religious conviction or affiliation of every actor or every person — particularly in the intro section — as if this were particularly important to the general reader? Is this done only for Jews? Do you differentiate between, say, Episcopalians and Presbyterians when you add similar information for Protestants or do you keep it on a general level? If a person is non-observant or changes affiliation, is this similarly noted? Is there something about Gabriel Macht as an actor that is clarified by stating that he is Jewish? Please explain what's going on here. If this a special interest of yours, please expand. I'm sure others aside from myself are curious about this. Myron 01:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Macht was still placed within the recently deleted category Category:Jewish American actors. This was because someone had undone the edit to remove him from that category and place him in Category:American Jews and Category:Jewish actors.  What I did was to partially undo that edit, with an edit summary to indicate the first category had been deleted.


 * That's the beginning and ending of my interest: a simple housekeeping task. If it's changed something else on that page which other editors didn't want changed, then feel free to do whatever's needed.  Just don't put him back into the deleted category. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This totally clears up my question. For some obscure reason, your housekeeping for the deleted category restored the offensive material that apparently had been placed there by an anonymous visitor with a long history of all sorts of disruption on Wikipedia and who had been inserting similar material in other articles. Thank you very much for straightening this out. Of course, this leaves the issue of some system bug causing unintended consequences, but I have no idea where to look for a solution for that. Myron 09:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That may have simply been carelessness on my part -- I was focusing on the categories when I undid the last edit. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen
Hi, how are you doing today? I noticed that you've been keeping an eye on Watchmen, and I was wondering what you thought of the article's condition as a Featured Article. I personally feel that it's an abysmal failure as a Featured Article, riddled with original research and bad sources. I've been planning to re-write the article on a subpage and to place Watchmen for FAR to see if major revisions can be made. Take a look at User:Erik/Watchmen for a list of references that I've gathered to help me out. Also, the links that are green-checked are links already used in the article that I've deemed appropriate. The red-X links are links used are the article that are not appropriate because they do not fit the reliable source criteria. (The reasons for why the links are inappropriate are at the end of each entry.) Take a look at User:Erik/Watchmen/Draft as well; I've marked in red the text that depends on the inappropriate links, and I've marked in green the text that seems to be original research by drawing upon the comic book panels and not independent, secondary sources (see ref. #29 for such an example). I've initiated a rewrite at User:Erik/Watchmen/Revision first using the "good" references from the current article, then using the references from the first subpage I showed you. Just wanted to know your opinion of this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Take your time. It's not a project in which I'm rushing.  I had started working on improving Kingdom Come, and I planned to use Watchmen as a guide to do so.  In looking at the latter article, I realized in how poor shape it was.  I even compared it to when the article achieved Featured status; there were a lot of faults in its nomination, with not very much serious criticism of the references used.  I've been working on Watchmen (film) for some time, and I think that article is in better shape than the one on its source material.  Anyway, like I said, no rush.  It's something I hope to work on in the course of this fall. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me
I see you are doing good work on Wiki, and you appear to be a solid and respected editor - just the sort of person we need on Wiki. You have done nothing major wrong, however this comment has been drawn to my attention. It's a a shame, because it's not helpful. It's in public, and it's a matter of record. RobHoitt is trying to make Drax (Doctor Who) a better article. He is keen, and needs to be encouraged and helped. You both share an interest in Dr Who and should get on. We have no cabal here - we try to create a community where everyone helps each other. Such a comment, following RobHoitt's comments to you that he found your tone to be hurtful and alienating, doesn't look good. I'm sure you didn't mean to be hurtful, however that is the way that RobHoitt is seeing it, and that is the way I would see it if the same thing was said to me in the same circumstances. As you have some knowledge of Dr Who, and you have some months of Wiki experience, could I ask that you work with RobHoitt, and give him some support, encouragement and helpful advise. He is a friendly, co-operate person who responds very well to friendly communication. If you take him under your wing I'm sure he would be able to improve the quality of his article writing. Regards. SilkTork 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. However, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism regarding RobHoitt's potential as an editor.  I've seen no signs that he's willing to learn about the encyclopaedic coverage of fiction, despite being pointed in the direction of the relevant guidelines, or that he has the emotional resiliency to cope with the simplest of disagreements — something understandable in an editor yet to see their twenties, but, frankly, worrying in someone past thirty.


 * Wikipedia is not operated by a cabal, true. But we're also not a haven for the incapable.


 * It's possible that I'm wrong about Rob. Maybe, with the right kind of mentor, he'll get his act together.  But I'm damn sure I'm not that mentor. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with your response. SilkTork 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, I'm not aiming to become Wikipedia's first living saint. I prefer to deal with the realities of the editing process.  Oh, and this?  Well funny. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tebbit/Doctor Who
Cheers for the response, I am aware of the Wikipedia policy but I am asking the user in question why he removed the quote in the first place and why he asserts that he knows the book to be fictional, which he hasn't explained on his original edit. If he has good reason to seriously doubt its existence then fair enough, as I say I can't find a reference to the book online although I didn't search for very long and the author certainly does exist. I'm just concerned that the quote may have been removed because it sounds extreme, comical and unlikely, which I don't think is actually the case, Tebbit has said far more ludicrous things about BBC programmes than this. However if nobody has any evidence that the book actually exists then fair enough. MarkB79 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the same site I found a satirical reference to Tebbit calling the same Doctor Who serial anti-Tory propaganda (although the quote there is quite different however from the alleged 'Right Ahead' quote and is obviously comical) though I don't think was there was any reference to Luskin on that page. Bearing that in mind, fair enough it may well be some Doctor Who fan's idea of a joke (maybe the guy who maintains that site). It wouldn't surprise me even if the contribution was based on satire that it might have an orginal basis in fact, it is exactly the sort of thing Tebbit was writing about BBC programmes at the time but nontheless it obviously can't be included if the book isn't on Virgin's records. There is a site online that examines a number of Tebbit's claims about supposed left-wing propaganda in BBC drama in the 80's with some truly ridiculous allegations listed but I don't remember it making any mention of Doctor Who. MarkB79 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Spirit
Thanks so much for your comments on my page. I would greatly appreciate your assistance and guidance in understanding the issue. I believe that I have acted in good faith on adding the contributions of the two Executive Producers of The Spirit. Virtually every published article, both in the trades and in the commercial press, includes mention of them.

Moreover, the WikiProject Films/Style guidelines both has an absence of any discussion relative to any consensus about the inclusion of Executive Producers and Associate Producers as another editor has claimed, and it uses an example that is precisely what I have added. If you check the example of The Terminator on that style guide, 2 of the listed producers were Executive Producers.

I have also read the discussions of the discussion of Template:Infobox Film and items 29 and 48 show no evidence of consensus on the inclusion of EP's. I'm sure that Eric is acting in good faith...but then so am I.  I think that perhaps he, understandably, has taken a Ownership of articles posture that can happen naturally. But if you check other films, such as Schindler's List, you will find a number of producers listed who were actually Executive Producers and Associate Producers. These are all important roles in the nurturing of an idea from it's earliest moment and they almost always contributed something very important to the final product.

I hope I can persuade you to reverse your revert.

Dawgknot 13:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, after some investigation, there really does not seem to be any clear consensus on this matter, and I've found inconsistencies with the implementation of producers' names. Thus, I've initiated discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is only right that you reverse your revert this morning. I think I have demonstrated conclusively that there is no consensus on this point as claimed by the other editor.  I added accurate information that is in many other film articles.  If fair play means anything, you must change your action.  This matter will be discussed, but any consensus...if there is one.... should apply to all film articles.

Dawgknot 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you reverted me. I have asked you to reverse your action. And you haven't responded to my prior requests either in writing or by conduct. Is this typical? I have made an excellent case for my point of view. I was bold and made edits appropriate for an article. Rather than discuss those edits that were neither vandalism or unsavory, I was just preemptorily reverted. Is that typical? When I put the material back in, you reverted...out of nowhere. Is that typical? Now I have made my case and Erik most certainly has not made his. Why are you unwilling to reverse your act? Or do you only respond to those you know and have worked with in the past. It is natural, and I understand it. But is it really how this is supposed to work? When does intellectual honesty come into play? Dawgknot 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And it is utterly irrelevant to you that trade industry professionals obviously feel otherwise? On what basis do we, as editors, take the view that when Daily Variety reports on the front page the casting of an actress and consume the space to also write about the producers in the article, that those producers are less important to the film than those an editor here chooses (arbitrarily and capriciously in my view) to include in the film article in the encyclopedia to the exclusion of the others? That appears to me to involve some decidedly non WP:V assumptions that should be addressed. Dawgknot 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Fry
Not ALL London taxis are black: Grey (pictured), Blue, Yellow, Silver and Mmmm. Mannafredo 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pipe & space
No worries. No harm done ;) I know when I first saw it I thought it was a mistake too. Pipe & asterix also works but pie & space stacks it higher and I have used both on some categories like Category:Films based on comics. So it is a handy tool. In the Alan Moore category it might not matter that much if you feel an asterix might avoid confusion. The main thing is that it appears top of the category. (Emperor 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Filking
Not stalking, honest. Just happened to stop by your contribs page.

But as you've mentioned you'd actually prefer someone to come up with a citation for the guy, would this do?:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1234410.cms

Rather weak, I know, but still independent I guess. Liquidfinale 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with improving articles, such as the Tom Smith article, which did, and still does, needmore citations (and in fact, I'm going to add the citation template to that as soon as I've left this message here). My problem was the manner in which it was done...simply saying not notable and lacks citations (which are two different things that I feel you kept confusing in the discussion) and letting that stand for a little while before calling for deletion. And in the arguments, I do feel that you were dismissive of any comments that didn't fit your own perceptions of notability.  No, I wouldn't say you were acting in bad faith, I don't think you were, I just don't think you were making your own assumptions clear in a manner which would allow people to try to convince you (if you can see the difference).Shsilver 16:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sighted revisions
Thanks very much for pointing that out; I'm all in favour. Do you happen to know if there's going to be a vote on it any time soon?--Rambutan (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your help. I'm off again tomorrow, though!!--Rambutan (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra synthesis
Could your edit summary here not have been more succinctly written as "OR"? :-) Rambutan (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is disgusting! It violates WP:SIG!!--Rambutan (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User Talk Pages
I would thank you in the future not to touch my personal users' page in the future. We have established that you have some personal issues against me, and it would appear that you are meddling in the hopes of some kind of adverse reaction that I will not give to you. You have made a large array of hateful commentary torwards me, and your further actions seem to only add to my case. I would liken your actions to pouring gasoline onto an already ignited fire. Do us both a favor and do whatever it is you seek to do elsewhere. RobHoitt 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rob, people aren't allowed non-free content in their user space. Since someone had added it to your page, I did you a favour and removed it.  It's that simple. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer that you personally didn't do me any more favors. Given your previous commentary, you'll understand why I might have a problem with you editing my personal page, for good or ill. Perhaps in time I might take value in your input, but for now I can not. So if you really want to do me any favors, my suggestion is to let me be. If, as you say, I am in need of growth and guidance, allow it to be offered by others. Then you and I will have no further reasons to quarrel personally and can each go about our lives pleasantly. I doubt that is too much to ask of you, after all you have indicated publically that you feel you are more mature than I, so let's both take the mature road going forward, alright? RobHoitt 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I very rarely edit someone else's user space (except on talk pages, for the purpose of communication). Unless exceptional circumstances arise again, it's unlikely I'll be removing stuff from your talk page. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is appreciated, thank you. RobHoitt 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who story chronology
Just to ask but please refraim from deleting the following from the list: Destiny of the Doctors Dalek Attack Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror

Them being outside the article's brief is just saying a whole lot of nonsense. Some of us here at Wikipedia are trying to any errors from happening and what you did is an error. This is just a warning but in future if you do continue, I will have to report you for vandilism. Thank You. Victory93 27/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory93 (talk • contribs) 08:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


 * The article deals with stories, not games. As such, removing games from the chronology is the correct thing to do.


 * And please don't hand out vandalism warnings in a content dispute; it's not good practice. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The video games are stories you so and so. Please reframe from getting rid of them or I will (in bold) REPORT YOU FOR VANDILISM. Victory93 27/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory93 (talk • contribs) 08:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not starting an edit war, your just hard to get through. Please reframe from removeing them and can we just be nice here. That's all I'm asking please. Victory93 27/8/07


 * "I'm not starting an edit war, your just hard to get through"
 * - *laughs* - You can talk. You repetedly vandalised the page by constantly changing "Doctor Who" to "The Movie".  The introduction paragraph states that it covers " television serials as well as stories from spin-off media, specifically novels and audio productions." - It doesn't mention games.  There are several games on the BBc site.  If you include the ones listed above, then you should list them all - and the ones on the BBc site are Clearly non-canon.
 * Also, Since to majority concensus on the talk page is to not inlcude them, then It is YOU who are commiting the Vandalism.  Your WP:OWN atitude does not help.  Your over inflated head needs deflated rapidly.  Digby Tantrum  is a PROPEr iwki user, and you are just being arrogant and unwilling to let any improvements be made to what you wrongly consider to be your page.  So if you add the Games then I WILL REPORT YOU FOR VANDALISM.  StuartDD 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
(my talk page) Stuart, just a note on vandalism: in order to class an edit as vandalism, you need to be able to assert that it is "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". While I think Victory93 is wrongheaded in what he does and his approach to doing it, I think he honestly believes he's improving the article.

That isn't to say you can't undo any edits of his that you think are wrong (with the boundaries of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL etc, naturally). But I doubt any vandalism report is going to be taken seriously if it looks like a content dispute. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After repetedly reverted edits, and being told specifically not to include them, and having them removed by four different people, he still includes them. I think that qualifies as vandalism.  An IP would have been blocked long before this.  StuartDD 09:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more likely that something can be done if he's shown to repeatedly go to three reverts, in which case an ANI report on gaming the system can be made. IPs tend to get blocked over 3RR or obvious vandalism. In Vitas's case, the admin who viewed the case noted he hadn't been warned specifically for the reverts he'd made.


 * If he goes to three reverts again tomorrow, I'll make a WP:GAME report. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Golding
Fair enough - feel free to add him there; please amend the note in TSoD to reflect the fact that he is not in that episode. However, I think it must be him, but that would certainly be OR!--Rambutan (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Cribbins
I was just talking to Rambutan about Mr. Cribbins on our Talkpages as you left that edit. Do you want to add it to the Voyage of the Damned page as well? I haven't seen DWM so don't want to add it myself. Kelpin 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your right my mistake sorry. Kelpin 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:AIV
You could have mentioned that on AIV, or in an edit summary, or elsewhere. You can't just expect every admin to trust everyone that reports something to AIV, often people will report someone just because they don't agree with them or people that haven't edited in days. -- John Reaves 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just the warnings
I didn't restore Victory93's entire talk page. I just restored the warnings. Stuart keeps restoring everything else. Wryspy 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These two statements together say clearly that you're not supposed to delete comments from your talk page:
 * "This page is considered an editing guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."
 * "Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it."
 * Yes, you're allowed to remove without archiving, but you're not supposed to. You're technically allowed to do all kinds of things you're not supposed to do. Doczilla 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you'd just read a little further down WP:TALK you would have seen this:"'More latitude is extended for user talk pages. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. For more information, see User page.'"And going to User page (also "generally accepted among editors") would have revealed the following:"'Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.'"These two statements say that users are allowed to remove comments from the talk page, though archiving is preferred. That doesn't mean that a user is not supposed to do otherwise; it merely means that archiving is seen as a better practice. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My Userpage edits
Thank you on behalf of myself and Rjecina. LessHeard vanU 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline on fiction: of possible interest
Just thought I'd bring to your attention the recently-revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion/disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, and given your involvement in the upkeep of the billion-odd Who articles, I thought I'd let you know. Best regards, Liquidfinale 08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I've added it to my watchlist. However, current guidelines (WP:SS, for example) and content policies (the usual suspects) already weight toward merging or deletion of many articles. Any new moves to tighten that up this is no bad thing, from where I'm standing. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

VistasV talk page
He's gone and blanked it again. Wryspy stated he should not remove warnings. If this is correct, can you please add them agian. StuartDD ( t  •   c ) 08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ever hear the saying, "Never piss off a bard"?
This is why. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Queens University Belfast
Hi, I saw you requested wider attention on this native Irish name issue, from the Universities project: just wanted to give credit where credit was due, for handling this well, and to leave a note of support. ColdmachineTalk 08:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

William Hughes (the young Master)
Can I ask where you got this information from? Strictly speaking, info about living persons needs a reliable source in order to be included in an article, even if it's only a small role in a television show. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew Pixley, in a thread devoted to the topic on the OG forums. Not citeable, perhaps. Assuredly accurate, however. His original source was a pamphlet of some sort that was passed out at the time.--75.61.114.65 10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're here, though, the first Google result.--75.61.114.65 10:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now there's interesting. Thanks for getting back to me. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page header
Currently, you claim that you "reserve the right to edit, delete, censor, or modify any content on this page which I feel is inappropriate". I think you ought to take a look at both Talk page guidelines and User_page. There are limits to a user's editing rights on talk pages. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark, this line is in User_page:
 * Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.
 * However to be fair, how do you feel I should express my desire to limit inapporpriate material? RobHoitt 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removal of comments is allowable, though not desirable. Censorship is another thing entirely. Your current talk page header expresses ownership, when it should be toned towards "speak reasonably to me". --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would the modification to the disclaimer that I have made alleviate your concerns? RobHoitt 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Removal of part" suggests the right to edit or refactor comments. Again, removal is what you can do without argument. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I revised again, and sent you an email asking for more information. I will wait for that so we do not 'cross-thread' each other. RobHoitt 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bots
Many thanks for letting me know about the opt-out option. I wasn't aware it existed. Hopefully it'll work. Cheers! 23skidoo 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Other uses templates
Do you know where I can find a list of "other uses" templates. I only know "otheruses4", so I would like to find out what the other ones are. StuartDD ( t  •   c ) 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry for the delay" - no problem, thanks for the help. StuartDD ( t  •   c ) 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

why only me
why'd only me get reported for the war that cbfan started im the inacent 1 he keeps removeing it even thought its got fair use and licensing--Kingdom of crash and spyro 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC).


 * The report mentioned that someone else had performed more than three reverts. It also mentioned that there were clear license difficulties with the image at the centre of the dispute.  The result of the report is that neither of you ended up with a block (which is a good result) and the page was protected for a while in order to allow people to simmer down (not a bad thing), and that the image was deleted (probably the best solution, as far as I'm concerned).


 * I honestly feel you need to study the policies surrounding non-free images more thoroughly. You were given excellent reasons for not using the image, and yet you stubbornly persisted in adding it to the article.  Copyrighted material needs to be handled very, very precisely, otherwise it simply can't be used in an article.  Please be more careful in future. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

sja
Fair enough, people do it for doctor who, so i just assumed,

thats fine--Wiggstar69 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Per your Edit summery on Superman Returns
I am not "fucking around".--Amadscientist 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crash titans 4.PNG
While speaking with Haemo, I noticed you spoke of Kingdom of crash and spyro reposting the image that was just deleted once again without the proper fair use rationale. I'm not really interested in the image or what article the image may be used in, but I was wondering if you can check the fair use rationale now and let me know if it is proper. Rather than his rationale, I posted it myself with what I think may be proper. --Tris31erlover 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I simply was curious on it. As much as I am willing to work on the page I probably won't simply becuase I don't know much of it besides playing some demo games years back. Oce again thank you. --Tris31erlover 02:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

K-9 Mark II
On that thinking, your assertion that K-9 Mark II is not assembled in that box could be claimed to be original research. I feel it necessary to note The Invasion of Time as his first appearance because otherwise it implies K-9 Mark II receives an introduction scene in The Ribos Operation. K-9 Mark II is fully fuctional by the latter serial. The box is certainly big enough for an assembled K-9 model. Wolf of Fenric 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But you are implying K-9 Mark II is introduced in The Ribos Operation along with Romana. Wolf of Fenric 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The concept of K-9 Mark II is introduced in The Invasion of Time and the words K-9 Mark II appear. Wolf of Fenric 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And whilst you were typing that - I've included a reference to The Invasion of Time in the end column instead as a compromise so your last message was redundant. Wolf of Fenric 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not original research to state the appearance of the box. Wolf of Fenric 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. I'm glad my rewording resolved the issue. You were right to point that out. Wolf of Fenric 18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not point out that my rewording was right, but to point out the mistake in the first place, I mean. Wolf of Fenric 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Guthrie Festival
Mark, when I click on the link you sent, it takes me to a history page supposedly for the Woody Guthrie Folk festival, but when you click on "Article" or the dates to see the archived versions, it takes me to the Woody Guthrie article! I don't see any history of the Festival! Am I delirious? I am so confused. I don't see/can't find that an article exists for the festival. Kmzundel 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I *finally* found and was able to remove the redirect!  Started a stub article!  Kmzundel 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reporter
Frankly, I am not prepared to persue this in an edit war. I know I am right in stating that this character recurs. I am in agreement that she is an insignificant character unworthy of a page of her own, but recur she does. The list is entitled 'Other recurring or significant humans' and she qualifies as the former, hence my placing her on the list. Similarly, Doctor Sato is not a recurring Doctor Who character, (despite being a regular on Torchwood), but she qualifies for this list on the basis of being significant in that she has her own page. Anyhow, I cannot be bothered continuing to list the Reporter only for her to be removed again. Wolf of Fenric 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry
but i am trying to help people and cbfan is bein a bully i try to help he mocks me for no reson sory im evan trying to come a administrater myself--Kingdom of crash and spyro 14:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC).


 * Don't listen to him, he's lying. He's deliberatly vandalising (by posting an un-licensed picture numerous times) AND ignoring advice we give him. CBFan 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I happened to be in the neighbourhood and was intrigued enough by two sides each claiming the other to be in the wrong to look further into the matter.

Oh dear.

CBFan is an enthusiastic vandal fighter. Such is his determination that his talk page is peppered with thanks for his actions, admins saying that they can't issue bans on the grounds and of the severity he's requested, and civility warnings. When dealing with who he terms vandals, his recent contributions alone demonstrate a s e v e r e

i n a b i l i t y

t o

m a i n t a i n

c i v i l i t y

o r

t a c t.

he hurls abuse, he's replaced the standard welcome message from a vandalizing ip's talk page on rather interesting grounds, during the present spectacle he's lapsed into open mockery of Kingdom's writing style after after being told that the latter has a "literacy difficulty". You saw what he repeatedly did to Kingdom's user page - a bit later, he left a message on Kingdom's talk page, saying that he won't "have to keep on deleting" Kindom's comments if he uses a spellchecker.

This needs to stop. In the original version of the message (before a browser crash) I said that in the absence of another party the matter apparently falls to me, you and/or anyone more competent whom we bother; in the time that was lost, the third category got taken when an admin caught wind of CBFan's activities and blocked him for three days. That will in all likelihood repeat if he lapses into the old ways right after returning, but that's a stop-gap solution (albeit a very effective one if it happens once too often...). Do you have any ideas on how to achieve a less virtual-equivalent-of-violent outcome? Could calling in a mediator to explain things for him help? Should he just be reported for some carefully chosen words from the administrators? --Kizor 04:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen some of the recent kerfuffle CBFan's been involved with, as some of it's on my watchlist. If he doesn't come back from his block having rethought his approach to things, I'd suggest either a Wikiquette alert (an informal, gentler way of doing things, which seems very suitable for addressing incivility) or, if really thought necessary, an RfC.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RfCs tend to kick up an awful lot of dust for very few results - and in this particular case, there's no complicated issue to merit calling for a multitude of perspectives - but a Wikiquette alert looks like it could be tailor-made for the occasion. That said, I spoke in Kingdom's favor on AN/I because of what CBFan has put him through, which CBFan saw and has so far accused me of lying four times and deliberately making him look bad thrice. Could you stay back as a relatively uninvolved party and make an alert if and when you consider it appropriate? (His first e-mail actually quoted and attacked your text, but apparently as a case of mistaken identity.) --Kizor 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image
Yep, capping date is the same - I just scaled it down in order to avoid claims that it is too high in resolution, as happened with another image I uploaded. The original was massive. Wolf of Fenric 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want anyone to take you seriously.....
Tone down the insults and the language you use. I do not respect anyone that handles themselves so poorly with no good reason. I have a great deal of respect for the intellectual property of others. You may well be better off looking at others who fill articles up with oversized, poorly rationalized fair use images.--Amadscientist 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

graphism
Per your suggestion I moved the reference to graphism to Philosophy of mathematics, but I'm a bit unsure whether I put in the correct place within that article. A paper indicated that maths use less graphs than natural sciences, and there is a proposition that graph use is higher in hard sciences than soft sciences. Therefore, if the proposition is true, we see that the graphism thesis has a direct relation to the question "is maths a science?". I know this has to be expanded further, but for now that's what I can do, and I hope someone else can step in and improve on my contribution. NerdyNSK 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to broach the subject at the article talk page, or at WP:WPM (the project for coordinating maths articles) to get wider input on this. I'm only one chap, and my expertise in mathematics, such as it is, is directed towards mathematical analysis and its implications. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sockpoppets
Thought you might be interested: yon fellow who vandalised your userspace has been blocked for repeatedly asserting that the Queen of Our Hearts was murdered. Turns out he has a "twin brother": User:Toolsmain. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I ended up spending the afternoon reverting the contents of a sock drawer. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What's unfortunate about Mr Learntruck is that it was one relatively innocuous revert which appears to have kicked off his recent behaviour. He must have already been at the tipping point and ready to flip before I went anywhere near him, but I can't help but feel a twinge of guilt at that. Still, I like how he asks for "time to find a source" on the Diana thing; it's almost as if he truly believes he'll be able to unravel in five minutes what ten years has thus far been unable to. Liquidfinale 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, he could be a returning offender. When he went for you, someone added this to his user page.  And looking at the user log, the account only appeared a few days ago, and participated in creating a hoax article, Kunkanti; that whiffs of career vandal, to me.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on User:SilkTork's page
Looking at your recent contributions, I was wrong to be so pessimistic about your potential. Allow me to apologise for that: I'm sorry. People who create free images are always welcome on Wikipedia.

Regards. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your apology, it actually means a lot. No doubt it would also please you to know that I prefer to use software from a British company called Serif Software for my graphics work. The Serif folks opened up their US operations near my old home in New Hampshire, and were very kind in giving several software packages to a local Radio Club with no requirement of advertising or being repaid in any way. The software worked great, and I've been a loyal customer ever since. Cheers!  RobHoitt  - 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk

Re: your note on my talk page
Thank you! I had no idea. =David ( talk )( contribs ) 23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was insulted
You may not have meant it, and what you are defending is certainly worth the effort. (I'm sure in both our opinions)But an insult is how I took it. You very well could have made the effort to be nice, you just decided not to. Bringing up my spelling now.... you are still not trying.--Amadscientist 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen

 * All I want to do is nominate those pictures for deletion through dicussion, and you keep reverting it as vandalism. Please stop that as a dicussion is the best way to do it, or nominate at WP:PUI because the no license tag is invalid if a supposed "license" has been added. So you will have to use another method of deletion. 217.43.58.131 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added all three images to WP:IFD. 217.43.58.131 10:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked both of you for a while until I've had a chance to review what's going on. Hang on please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to deleting Image:BN4072 12.jpg, Image:Ryan sheishi sole.jpg and Image:Kunkanti hotel.jpg, someone might want to delete Kunkanti. They were all part of a sockpuppeteer's (Learntruck/ Godhunter) attempt to produce a hoax article. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've deleted the vandalism pages and unblocked you, Digby. Sorry for the block, you were of course rightly reverting vandalism. Just for future reference, I'd nevertheless recommend to avoid making mass-reverts in situations like this - better to call in the admins before it comes this far. And, formally, hoax deletions should really be AfD's, not speedies, but I've IAR'd in this case.

Sorry, there might still be an autoblock around on your IP. The tool that finds these is currently down, so I can't lift it without you telling us your IP. Please do an {unblock-auto} if needed. Sorry for the inconvenience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No probs. And you're right, I should have alerted an admin earlier on — I kind of got lost in the moment.  I'll look into sorting the IP thing, now.  Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)