User talk:Herostratus/Archive 4

Barnstar

 * Heh, thanks, glad you liked it. Herostratus (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded, but for this. With all the corporate jackals circling to exploit her she'll probably end up doing a Farah on Letterman ten years from now. Top drawer, really! Cheers! –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that. Ten years? She'll be working day shift in a rundown bar in Utica, New York, boring everyone with drunken rambles about how she used to be a big star. See Veronica Lake. Herostratus (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ferrante & Teicher
I thought that title looked strange, and I know we're not supposed to use other Wikipedia articles as references, but I used the title from Exodus (soundtrack). Supposedly whoever edited that article had the track listing in front of them. If you're right, the other article should be changed. The question is how to know for sure. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is copy everything you told me on the talk page of Exodus (soundtrack). That's what people will be relying on. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_The_Angry_Video_Game_Nerd_episodes
Here is your heads up! It just hit 30 days today, so you can wait if you don't really wanna close it. Just posting before I forgot who you are. C T J F 8 3 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, C T J F 8 3  01:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! Above and beyond! Thanks, C T J F 8 3  02:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ....unfortunately use to that kind of shit..oh well, thanks for your review. C T J F 8 3  12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Administrators'_noticeboard, nothing major, I just mentioned you. C T J F 8 3 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Wow! You did a lot of work on it, I appreciate it! C T J F 8 3  20:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of the Poet
There are three mistakes in the article. Please see Talk:Death of the Poet. You should better translate the article from the German Wikipedia Der Tod des Dichters (Lermontow). Unfortunately my English is not good enough for that. :-) Regards S.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se90 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Word count tool
You added a link to a new word count tool to the GOCE copyedit drive instructions (here). However, that seems to be a character count tool, not a word count tool. Is there some option there that I'm missing? If you use that JavaScriptKit tool instead of the recommended Dr. PDA tool, you will get a much higher number than the rest of us. For example, if I run Dr. PDA's plugin on this page, I get "689 words". However, if I paste the same text into the JavaScriptKit tool, it responds "10965 characters".

I found the Dr. PDA tool very easy to install and use, and my skin didn't even have a .js file when I started the installation, so I'm sure it can be made to work for you, too. You can also try the alternate method (paste into a word processor) given in the FAQ (third Q/A in the Page Size section here). Unless you know some way to get a word count out of the JavaScriptKit tool, I suggest you undo your change to the drive instructions.

Thank you! Johnson487682 (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hi there! I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images

I've made the following changes:
 * I am not entirely sure what the status of the case actually is. Did you get assigned a mediator other than Ludwig? As far as I can see, the other user you named did not indicate support for the mediation. Therefore, I've assigned myself for now to the case and left the other user a standard "Request for participation" talk page message. If mediation is no longer required, could you please let me know?

Please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation at any point, that's totally fine. If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh right, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-14/User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images.


 * Well, I was never able to persuade the other user to sign on, so I guess its a dead letter.


 * The issue was over some changes he wanted to make. He never did get to make the changes he wanted, he was more or less "outvoted" by the people on the essays's talk page and gave up, I guess.


 * But if he wants to revive the case, I am willing to revive the case. Since I "won" my point in other ways, and since I think his proposed changes were silly, I'd rather not, and think it would be waste of time now. But if the other user want to revive the case and you want to accept it, I am willing to do it and cooperate fully. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Since he's not provided any participation on the MedCab case thus far and not even shown any sort of willingness to enter mediation (I note his page says he is on a wikibreak), I will close this case without prejudice to you being able to file another MedCab request if you feel it is necessary in the future. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Valerik River
Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Valerik (poem)
Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

TaquanAirLogo.jpg
I wonder if you have any experience that would help with moving the Taquan Air logo on the Russian article to the English Taquan Air. There is already a discussion started at Talk:Taquan Air. I don't understand how it can be used on the Russian site without also being licensed on the English site. It might be a legal problem and it might be a technical problem. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:TaquanAirLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TaquanAirLogo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lolicon image
I have been trying to fix up that article on and off for the last two months, as it was a GA and I felt the quality was not anywhere near good enough. Please rest assured that I find the subject matter quite distasteful. I felt I was simply being bold in my edits. --Malkinann (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology, and for setting things straight on the talk page too. I appreciate that.  --Malkinann (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Smashing Computers
I very much enjoyed your smashing of computers at Jimbos page. Thanks for the chuckle. Buster Seven   Talk  05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks. It was a lot of work, but mostly enjoyable. Herostratus (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously??? LOL, wow! I would gone crazy after the first few comments, if I wasn't involved. C T J F 8 3  21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. I like doing different things on Wikipedia, and something like this gets me to play out my inner lawyer/judge. I wouldn't want to do it too often. Herostratus (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Essay in your userspace
Hello. I had left comments on the talk page of an essay that was apparently created by a banned user. I see that it has now been userfyed. (Is that how you spell it?) It seems to be a topic worth exploring, and I was going to comment there again. However I am now unsure about this. I think I remember reading somewhere that others generally shouldn't edit an essay that is in someone's userspace. I wasn't sure if this applied to talk page comments as well. Also, as it was created by a banned user, commenting on it may be contrary to the WP:RBI approach that Beeblebrox suggested. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (The editor is talking about User:Herostratus /Wikipedia:Profiles of operating corporations, and if anyone wants to take it off my hands feel free to move it - I don't really want it, don't intend to work on it, and probably don't much agree with it. I only userfied it here to save it, as I think it's interesting work and deserving of more development - just not by me.) Herostratus (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still unsure as to the protocol of on who's talk page I'm supposed to respond. By the time I logged in and received your message the essay had been deleted again, which is fine with me. I wasn't really in favor of using it. I just felt that if we were going to use it, we should clean it up first. We may need a policy similar to that one at some point. However, it seems less than ideal to use something that was written by a banned user as the framework. If that policy needs to be created, we should probably start from scratch. Thanks for the offer though. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure?
Surely queue has four successive vowels... Alzarian16 (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your message
Hi Herostratus.You have recently sent me an message to me. I read it. I am not understanding what is the point in separating both project articlesWP:Incremental service awards an WP:SERVICE.Both are almost the same.I think they should be at least merged. Please clarify your stand. Suri 100 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your immediate response. Suri 100 (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the Service Award Updates :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Enlarge the Circle
Thanks for your support at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing. The expanding socialization of our beloved WP is in the wind. TRA! Buster Seven   Talk  13:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC) 

Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by sharing them with someone else. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy!

Thanks
Thanks for upgrading my service award.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, thanks for your note. Herostratus (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Yumiko Kurahashi
Thanks for the feedback on the edits of Yumiko Kurahashi. The Dates of birth and death section of WP:MOSNUM describe how birth and death dates should be described in the article's introduction; locations are not included in any of the examples given, hence my edit. In the future, I will reference such edits to WP:MOSBD, which specifically points to this section. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Service level change
Thank you for notifying me about the service awards edit count changes! I always thought that the required number of edits increased too rapidly starting at Senior Editor III. Your change bumped me from SE II to SE III, but when I updated the edit count, it made me Master Editor. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay! Even better. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin coverup hoax
Hello, you seem to be a regular at WP:RSN. I would appreciate your opinion on the reliability of the Bryant source in the following discussion: Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
I don't normally keep tabs on that sort of thing. Now all I have to do is wait til September...  Serendi pod ous  16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice of you
Thanks for the upgrade Herostratus. It was an nice surprise. I'm used to people coming to my page to accuse me of something...--Geewhiz (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Old-style ribbon
Hi Herostratus. I appreciate your excellent effort in updating the service awards. Thank you. I just would like to ask you is there any way we can incorporate a few of the light-grey old-style ribbons as alternates to the new ones? I had seen an old proposal about this but I don't recall what happened. Thanks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My User Page
Thanks for the comments. As for your revert, I reverted it back. Check the AIN thread where I laid out that 3 main early contributors to the debate who took issue with my number agreed that the links were fine. I agree. Of course it's not unanimous, I do not believe that there is consensus to remove the links. I hope you're okay with that. Anber (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Award
Sure, thanks for letting me know. I'll take care of it at some point. Cheers. · Andonic  contact 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nautical template
Hi Herostratus. Your nautical vandalism template's images seem to have been deleted. Ankit Maity raised the issue at the template's talk page. I don't know what you want to do with this, but do something about it.-- The Master   of Mayhem  11:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's only the Level 5 image.-- The Master   of Mayhem  15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored
Do you mind explaining this edit? Pass a Method  talk  17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Essay
You have just done what I knew you would do. I love being proven right so thank you for the assist.

You did not say that your essay was a guideline or policy in this comment. However, you alluded to it. You did not clarify that your argument would apply but that the blue capped wikilink would apply. Those unfamiliar with the difference between essays, guidelines, and policies (note that IPSs are commenting and editing there) may not understand that the essay does not have wide support or that it is not some sort of standard editors are expected to adhere to.

My suggestion (besides getting a background seciton in that trainwreck or moving it into your userspace) is to make it crystal clear that it is your essay and that it is only an essay which does not bind editors as a policy would. I plug my essay plenty. Usually I say something along the lines of "see an essay I wrote") or even "see an essay". Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

you thread started yes, soo thanks (bear eat my pants)
Thanks for starting the thread Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards

A bear eat my pants!!! Iamiyouareyou (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested on Sea of Japan
If you have a chance, could you follow-up to my request for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names? It sounds like you're proposing that we change the current guidelines (which already use different names on different articles); that's different than just opposing the proposal by Chunbum Park. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Orson Welles' Birthday
In the WP article Orson Welles, his birthday is mentioned three times, in the lede, in the infobox, and in the biographical section. Only the last of these three was wrong. The anonymous IP editor altered the last of these (the bio section) to correctly match the other two which had his real birthday. Welles' birthday is easily verified from both Imdb and other sources. Give the IP person a little more credit.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points--WickerGuy (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Herostratus defcon maritime 5.jpg
I have moved your image as you requested. You are correct in thinking that duplicate images cannot be uploaded (and retained). I had a possible suggestion, though. If you were to graphically add the Defcon number on top of the image (e.g., in the font Arial Black), then you would be able to upload a 0 and a 5. You would also have to upload new versions of any other numbers to their appropriate colors. In the meantime, I have tagged File:Herostratus defcon maritime 0.jpg for speedy deletion. Should you decide to upload another file to that name, then you'd be more than welcome to. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  21:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tatischev Monument, Tolyatti - Long View.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tatischev Monument, Tolyatti - Long View.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Tatischev Monument, Tolyatti - Long View.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tatischev Monument, Tolyatti - Long View.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Tatischev Monument, Tolyatti - Rear View.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tatischev Monument, Tolyatti - Rear View.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Sau
A tag has been placed on Template:Sau requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual intercourse
Mind weighing in? I know you deal with the subject of pornographic images or what constitutes pornographic images here at Wikipedia, and it seems a decision needs to be made about this image currently in the Sexual intercourse article.

On a side note, you may also want to weigh in on the current discussion going on at the Copulation talk page -- whether that article should exist or not. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
You have been warned multiple times for your conduct in the topic area. Do not assist a disruptive IP. He has not used the talk page and consensus has not even been close to removing the image. You contributing to an edit war will be met with a report at ANI.Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

my comments
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herostratus&diff=407879065&oldid=407843032 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OBloodyHell&action=edit&section=4

Your response is appreciated, but the nature of the problem remains. The topics under discussion are of a fictional nature, and it is ridiculous to claim a necessary "external citation" on a point regarding a fictional universe, esp. when sufficient attention has been made to developing/explaining the correctness of the point. A prime example of this is that I can demonstrate that one of the early episodes of "Enterprise" has

a) a specified time frame for when it takes place, as well as

b) an actual, specific, real-world location the event takes place at, and

c) the nature of "Warp Speed" and the defined limits of the craft, by canon

--- make it impossible for the Enterprise to have gotten where it has purportedly gotten and remain "in canon" with regards to the whole description. In actuality, there is a clearly identifiable, undebatable flaw. Claiming that there must be an "external citation" in order to even mention this topic is patently ludicrous. There is no "Journal of Federation Warp Physics" in which to make this point "citable". And writing it up at "Memory Alpha", first, makes it no more or less valid.

The system is broken.

It needs mechanisms for dealing with, and establishing, a consistent set of agreed factual grounds on things for which there is no suitable "publication arena".

It has no such thing, as far as I know (it's possible that the wikiprojects on ST might do the job, above, but it's not really clear from the WP:ST page if that's a part of the idea or not -- and that leaves open the all the rest of the universes of Fiction). I concur with you that there needs to be some vetting capability for claims being made, but that's not something I've seen the slightest interest in at this point on Wikipedia. I just see "reversions" based on "needed external sources" and "original research" while ignoring the fact that there IS NO POSSIBILITY of "external sources" or "non-original research" in the arena in question. The two or three times I've had this idiocy foist upon me demonstrate what is usually referred to as a "foolish attention to consistency" -- that is, the simple fact that it's possible to take ANY idea and run straight off the end of the earth with it. That's what's happening in this case, and it's one of the key reasons I've stopped wasting my time on Wiki -- wiki doesn't actually CARE about facts, it cares about forms.

And any facts lying outside the existing forms? Ah... they don't exist?

The goal of making wikipedia a "reliable reference source" makes perfect sense when dealing with factual information. There are large swathes of topics, however, which are not absolutely factual by nature (fictional things are one key example -- but also things of a political bent are a secondary such, as are "hot button" topical issues where the actual reliability of the knowledge is debatable and/or in steady flux, like AGW and Nuclear Power).

Currently, wikipedia needs to allow for two things it currently lacks. First is a venue for "establishing" the factual basis for things related to fictional works -- a place where one can post up something for "vetting" and make one's case for it, after a certain opportunity for review it would become acceptable to use that for reference in an actual article (and later reviews/vetting can change the status/allowability of the entry -- not saying this doesn't/shouldn't lend itself to correcting even after a time).

The other is an arena to deal with hot-button and contentious issues where a certain element of "multiple sides" (yeah, there is a certain question of fracture/fragmentation here) to a viewpoint. AGW is probably one of the best of these currently around. There are valid, reasonable claims made by both sides, and one can certainly justify debate on it from either point of view. If wiki is going to present anything on that, it should provide a window into the more accepted points of view, not one narrow one held by the most determined editors.

The current system does not allow for any solution to either of these general problems. There is a distinction between allowing "just anything in" and "adhering to a rigid code which cannot, in many cases, EVER be followed". That's "black or white". This is The Real World. Shades of grey are the only real thing to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBloodyHell (talk • contribs) 21:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In regard to your comments on my page:

-- Sorry, I lack your stuffy and, I would even say, "pretentiously arrogant" attitude towards comics in particular and fiction in general that "it's just kid stuff". The Legion and comic books overall have been striving, in the USA, for decades now, to be recognized as more than just "children's garbage". Further, anyone who has read Legion -- or many other comic books from about 1982 onward knows the typical reader isn't a child any more. Most of Europe AND Japan, and likely many other nations as well, have figured out long since that just because it uses graphic pictures doesn't mean it's crap only for children or generally unworthy of adult-level analysis and thought -- your rather sneering and arrogant attitude is exceptionally parochial.

Further, the complaints I discuss also cover issues with media fiction such as Star Trek. I similarly reject the assertion that Star Trek is "unworthy of thought, consideration, or mature discussion" as patently ludicrous. One need not be only a drooling fanboy to find interesting subject elements to be discussed among mature and intelligent company. Clearly, that latter doesn't apparently include you and your arrogantly dismissive attitude.

Wikipedia is inherently faulty in its inability to deal with the concept of verifiability except by the sole justification of external reference. A fact that can be clearly demonstrated with a reasonably short delineation of information is still a fact, regardless of whether or not some other venue has actually included it in its set of referable entries. Wikipedia, which purports itself to be a repository of fact -- after all, that's what an encyclopedia IS -- thus excludes from itself any possible consideration of the far larger mass of demonstrable fact about an entire class of "things of interest", like fictional works, which lack a standardized peer-review process.

I more than amply ack the notion that it's reasonable to not allow random assertions in the tome -- I simply state that the lack of any "reference medium" to extend the exceptionally limited and thus blatantly defective concept of "verifability" is a flaw in wiki. It's not a flaw in fiction, nor a flaw in anything else. It's quite clear that someone never thought this through adequately. There should be an associated wiki subsection ("WikiPeers") for the introduction of reasonable assertions which can then be reviewed and argued by others, with the long-term goal of identifying if a claim is sufficiently factual to meet the intention behind the "verifiability" concept -- after which the claim can be asserted in wiki unless and until someone raises issues in the same venue which challenge that assertion to the satisfaction that it is no longer accepted. In effect, wiki is lacking a suitable venue for peer review for internal inclusions which do not have external peer review processes available to them. This, of course, is the nature of reason and science -- we often find a concept, decide it's valid, then, as new info comes to light, decide it is invalid. See phlogiston, ether physics, warm blooded dinosaurs.

Q.E.D. -- wikipedia has a substantial defect.

This is an issue Those In Charge should address, rather than adopting your own rather sneeringly offensive attitude, I quote: "I would recommend letting go of the Legion moving on to more substantial literature". This problem is not, and never has been, a "Legion" issue. That's just one of MANY places the DEFECT crops up in, which harms wikipedia in many ways.

--OBloodyHell (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBloodyHell (talk • contribs)

re Ann Miller
Thanks. Goldnpuppy (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Things are going well, I've actually edited several articles and even created a couple. Goldnpuppy (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks
Thanks for updating the service award on my user page. Your care and attention is appreciated. Double Blue (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI Edit Summary
I know stuff can bother you, but edit summaries like |this aren't acceptable, don't help the encyclopedia, and just give off a bad impression of you. Please try to maintain civility at all times - even when it's difficult.'' Avillia  (Avillia me!) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh. I don't really agree with you, at least not about the "aren't acceptable" part. I wasn't attacking anyone. The "bad impression" part may be true. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you gotta vent sometimes, but somewhere that visible while you're trying (hopefully) to resolve conflict is just a horrible place to do it, mate. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 06:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, who reads ANI edit summaries anyway? I only read edit summaries when I'm checking article histories. Except in a to check if material has been removed or mis-signed or something, why on earth would anyone read ANI edit summaries? Herostratus (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources and ANI
I thought about you today. You were against using Dan Savage as a source. He went from being just a columnist in an alternative paper, to a syndicated columnist, to a good person on YouTube (per sources and the President of the United States), to a television host. I thought it was very interesting. Yeah he is alternative still but he has got some love from the New York Times and the commander-in-chief. Good for him.

So on to the lame part. I am still considering how to go forward with your disruption in the topic area. As I see it, you have twice reverted editors to allow disruptive edits from IPs since it advances your agenda. I might be having a knee jerk reaction and can admit it so thought I would ask for any clarification from you before taking it to ANI. Cptnono (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Comments of WT:RUS
I saw your recent comments about the enforcement WP:RUS and wanted to let you know I agree. A discussion on the subject recently took place about the naming of the city Korolev despite reliable english sources including the U.S. Federal gazetteer agreeing that this should end in "ev", Ëzhiki has been pushing his opinion that strict interpretation should be followed and "yov" used. This seems backward and contrary to our common name policy (which should take precedence over our romanisation guideline). I also note that it was Ëzhiki who wrote the romanisation guideline (despite making claims he did not write it and would have written something less rigid himself) and also moved a number of these articles (including Korolev) away from their common name to a strict romanised name. I don't have the experience to consider rewriting this guideline myself but if you are considering it, you would have my support at least and you could probably get that of User:Mlm42 who was pushing for the changes to Korolev. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerns at Dylan620's RFA
Please explain this, and why: Basically, after thinking this over, it just overall is not a good idea for the Wikipedia to encourage minors to be admins, period, part of my reasoning being delineated at my earlier postings at #8 in the Neutral section. Granted we have made admins of minors in the the past, but: it's time to stop doing this. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, please respond here, and leave me a talkback. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the message points to my comments (at #8 in the Neutral section of that page) where I kind of cover it. But in short: Wikipedia contains material, specifically images, that are not suitable for young people. A few of these are even, in the strictly literal sense, pornography (since they are used to illustrate articles about pornography). And per the links I gave at at #8 in the Neutral section, the subject has actually dealt with some of this material. So it is not a good idea for the subject's general development to be entrusted with handling material like this, and it is not a good idea for the Wikipedia to be entrusting minors with official duties in this situation -- it could lead to a rather embarrassing line of questioning down the road. That the Wikipedia chooses to host extreme sexual imagery is all well and good, but in that case we should do much more to discourage minors from using the site -- and giving minors official recognition and duties is the opposite of that.

If you choose to respond, please do not make reference to the beauty of the nude human body, the appropriateness of illustrations in anatomy articles, the history of nude modeling in world art, or the appropriateness of children learning where babies come from. The illustration I referred to (which the subject has dealt with) has nothing to do with any of that. If is an illustration from a pornographic production of a woman being abused by a gang of men. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I clearly understand that but...not all WP admins are that exposed to porn and nudity as you know...and some minors have web protections that prevent explicit content from appearing anyways. hmssolent\Let's convene 02:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at HS always using everything at their disposal to complain about our censorship standards. The images are not intended to be porn and you doing more than imply otherwise is offensive. You have a moral obligation to not contribute and/or call the police if you believe we are distributing porn. You find it offensive. Others have less puritan or knee-jerk (or both) views and can appreciate media enhancing a project hat is intended to facilitate gaining knowledge. You seriously scuttled someones goal of becoming an admin just because you want to make a point? Shame on you.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cptnono. Your contribution to this conversion between me and hmssolent is both welcome and cogent. Your constructive comments help us all to feel more collegial and contribute to building a better encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just weighed in on the matter here and here. I definitely understand Herostratus's concerns. But if Dylan620 is 18, in what context are we referring to him as a "minor"? Am I wrong about his age? Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see that at Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2, he is stated as age 15. And since he hasn't objected to being stated as this, I can only assume that he must be age 15. Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Page update
Thanks for update my service award. I stopped editing because my heart wasn't in it (I got sick of arguing with people and some of the policies that were being made which I felt hurt articles and made them worse, but I couldn't do anything about it), so I have rarely edited (except for minor things when I happened to be reading an article). Can't believe how long I have been here.  TJ   Spyke   17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

16 and Pregnant article
I plan to add criticism, as well as praise (if I can find it), in relation to the show for that article soon. I've been meaning to do that for the longest now. Although..."soon" for me may mean "one or two months from now." Either way, I felt that I would let you know that I will be fixing up that article -- not just with reception material. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Violette (singer)
There is little on the artist, and little in the article to indicate she is notable. I'm even unsure how to search for information about her, as this Gsearch is probably too wide to yield meaningful results. This search is a little more hopeful, but there is little other than the Amazon, linked-in and Facebook entries. The best I found so far appears to function like a Wiki. There is not even an equivant fr.wp article. I thought of prodding it, but as you are the article's creator (and not some IP or SPA), I thought you would be the best hope of finding some suitable info on her. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles
You recently commented on an issue to do with Template:British Isles. The template has been protected to allow for discussion of its title.

It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:


 * British Isles
 * British-Irish Council area
 * Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
 * British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

New Contributors Help Page
Hiya, in this edit did you mean WP:NACTOR instead of WP:ACTOR? I reckoned it would be a bit rude if I changed it so I thought it best to double-check with you first. doom gaze  (talk)  21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Lying down game for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lying down game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lying down game until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RadioFan (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved your comment at WT:Articles for deletion
I to WT:Articles for deletion. It looked like in the wrong section. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

fyi
liked your post to the Santorum article. — Ched : ?  06:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was a bit over the top but I allow myself an occasional rant. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One more not-so-subtle insult like this and we're headed to WP:WQA or WP:ANI. -- Neil N   talk to me  18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it that character assassins always have such thin skins? Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again with the assumption of bad faith. You cannot comprehend that editors can have no interest in Santorum and disagree with your interpretation of BLP without being idiots? -- Neil N   talk to me  19:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Herostratus (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please use caution in your postings Herostratus. We're here to discuss content and not our fellow editors.  It's never acceptable to attack and insult the editors here.  While it's often that we may not understand why someone disagrees with us, we must always try to show respect to those making an effort to improve the project.  I've often disagreed with many folks here, but I do try to remember to always respect both them and their viewpoints.  One page on the internet is hardly a reason to get into some flamewar and start disparaging a person we've never even met.  I may disagree with Neil, but I've also realized that he's an intelligent, thoughtful, and rational person (as are many of the others that I respect in the opposing camp on the Santorium issue).  We can disagree, but we must always endeavor to take a high road rather than stoop to the Savageesque style of commentary.  — Ched :  ?  00:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. Thank you. Herostratus (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
I've noticed that a link to encyclopediadramatica.com on your userpage. That website is now gone, and its domain redirects to ohinternet.com. Fortunately, a copy of that article is preserved at "encyclopediadramatica.ch/Herostratus". If you wish, you may change the link on your userpage from ".com" to ".ch". Otherwise, visitors to your usepage will be confused and caught off-guard when clicking on the link leads them someplace totally unexpected (ohinternet.com). They may even believe that you somehow tricked or "rickrolled" them. encyclopediadramatica.ch isn't blacklisted, but if it is in the future, you can already ask the maintainers of MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist to change the entry for that article from ".com" to ".ch". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Politicians arrested and charges with corruption
You are invited for discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1 and also Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption- . Shlok  talk. 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Assisting in disruption again?
I am going to assume this is not the third time you have willfully ignored IP vandalism. Three times now unless you say it was an oversight. Yes or no?Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Malaya Sadovaya street (painting)
Hello, Herostratus, I found your nice article Malaya Sadovaya Street, where you use painting «Malaya Sadovaya Street», by Alexander Semionov. Today I did an article about this picture: Malaya Sadovaya street (painting), which unexpectedly caused a nervous reaction from User:JNW, who saw in it a «conflict of interest» and brought it here for discussion. Can I ask you to express your opinion on this matter, since you had your reasons for using this image long before the article about her. Thank you, Leningradartist (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability of clergy
Hello, I was reading a 2008 notability discussion and saw your hypotheticals dated 2011. Is time travel involved? Anyway, if you (or anyone else) writes a well-referenced bio of Person A or Person B, I will defend those articles at AfD. As for the state legislator who skinned a dog, add a reference from a reliable source on that, and the encyclopedia will be improved. I still think that almost all Roman Catholic or Anglican bishops can be presumed notable, even the alcoholics. Cullen328 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request notification
Hi, you participated in a deletion request at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04). The same files are now being considered for undeletion at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests. If you're still around we'd appreciate your opinion and feedback. Thanks! Dcoetzee 23:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

EncyclopediaDramatica.ch blacklisted
Remember our previous discussion? encyclopediadramatica.ch has been blacklisted. If you wish to continuing providing the link, you may wish to start a new discussion at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Even though the original .com article doesn't exist any longer, it's still whitelisted, so it shouldn't be much of an issue to ask them to change it from .com to .ch. A record of your original request can be found here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Catch
Hello Herostratus. I just wanted to say congrats for finding the connection between Huckleberry Hound and Janis Joplin. I found that fact very interesting and I wouldn't have come across it without your research. I always appreciate learning something new so thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why sure. When it comes to finding connections between drug-addled rock screechers and demented cartoon canines, I'm your go-to guy. As soon as I find the ref, I'll also add a note to the article about Huckleberry Hound's role as spokesman for a (very) short-lived late-1960's DEA ad campaign to get kids to stick to marijuana and forgo heroin, LSD, and harder drugs ("Huck says, stick to doobies, kids!"). Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)