User talk:Hiding/Archive 2009

Hey, H.
Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. Best regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And as it happens, I'd like to suggest something and extend an invitation.


 * This idea came up in discussion between BOZ and myself, regarding the Daredevil and Psylocke articles. I've suggested to BOZ that we draft a proposal for redefining PH by blending it with FCB, as essentially are done there. It looks as if [Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)]] has evolved to where extensive in-universe biographies are being discouraged, and is trending toward biographical material being integrated with real-world creative personnel and events.


 * I've left invitations with Cameron, BOZ, and User:Asgardian, with whom obviously there have been differences but who I believe is fundamentally a good, solid editor interesting in removing fancruft. If you're interested &mdash; and I hope you are; it's no secret I consider you my Wiki role-model, for all the help and advice you've offered through the years, particularly when I was starting out &mdash; let me know and I'll set up a discussion page for us all and for any other interested editor. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Avengers Membership & D-Man again
Once again Slamburger and I are at it again regarding D-Man's Avengers Membership. A new third party source has found and Slamburger will not allow this source to be used. Do you might stepping in on the situation again. Spshu (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Help?
Your input would be welcome here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abomination_(comics) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics

there's a degree of hostility from one user that may be able to be neutralised by several voices. I think he needs to grasp that I am open to change and that this new style is a work in progress. Asgardian (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your What Notability is Not essay
I like it. A good counterpoint. Why not move it into general essay namespace instead of keeping it as a user essay? (and why not link to it from places like WP:NOT?) RoyLeban (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary requested
Hey there. :) Could you have a look at my thoughts and see if there is any commentary you would like to add? Maybe if I'm not alone in this, we can get some action going? BOZ (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Non-article Comics pages
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Non-article Comics pages, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Non-article Comics pages has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Non-article Comics pages, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About PLOT
Hello Hiding. It's good to see that you're still editing. I don't mean to burden you, but I need to tell you some things.

As you know, I've spent a considerable amount of my time lately on Wikipedia trying to remove PLOT from WP:NOT; at the end of this month it will have been a year now. Recently I posted links to every PLOT thread in the WT:NOT archives. I think articles ought to contain more than just a plot summary, but I don't think it needs to be done in five days. I've never created a plot-only article, I've never created a fictional character article, but I have read PLOT in the past and have cited film critics in dozens if not hundreds of film articles.

On December 30, I removed PLOT again after reading Protonk's reply to me at WT:NOT (saying "PLOT isn't going anywhere"). I was reverted by Jack Merridew, who said "rvv." You can see the range here. (Jack Merridew was indefinitely blocked until December 9 as the sockpuppet of a banned user, I requested he be added as a party to E&C2 before I even knew he was the sockpuppet of banned user, and I vocally said he should not be unblocked. I know you contributed to the E&C2 workshop.) I reverted, Jack Merridew reverted, I reverted again, Cameron Scott reverted, and I commented in an edit summary. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned, and one of his mentors brought up his edits to NOT on his talk page.

Since March 2008, I have removed PLOT from NOT more than anyone. I removed PLOT from NOT 13 times in 9 1/2 months, from mid-March 2008 to the end of December 2008. Looking back, that was an extremely poor decision on my part &mdash; but I feel strongly that PLOT being in NOT damages Wikipedia, that PLOT doesn't have consensus to be policy, and that it needs to be removed from that policy. I've made I-don't-know-how-many-edits to the policy talkpage since last year. After my recent reverts, Jack Merridew started an ANI thread. The admin who has reverted the removal of PLOT more than anyone (and filed ANI threads in November and December about my removals of PLOT) started a user RFC on my behavior, and Protonk (who told me PLOT isn't going anywhere) archived the ANI thread.

WP:NOT was fully protected for a month, until January 30, 2009 &mdash; but I requested unprotection at RFUP and thankfully it was unprotected. Jack Merridew and I promised to not edit WP:NOT at all during January, and I am considering many more months beyond that, but Kww called that a "weak pledge and nothing that I can see as a substantive step in the right direction" so I'm kind of at a loss.

Recently, WesleyDodds redirected every Watchmen character article except Rorschach to a list, due in part to PLOT I believe. I reverted, and Kww reverted me. I opposed Kww in his RFA, although I was the 40th person to do so. I suppose I have offended Kww in the past, referring to an article he created and his insistence on a strict adherence to WP:N as hypocritical. But I know nobody is 100% consistent, I know I'm not. But there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And the page has complaints now. And no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either. That thread is basically WesleyDodds saying he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." I thought about asking Kww about his edits, but right now I think the articles are safer as redirects, frankly. Emperor started a new thread at WikiProject Comics here.

In October, Phil Sandifer made a request to extend the restrictions imposed upon TTN during E&C2. On October 9, arbitrator Stephen Bain rejected the request and said "One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters." So on October 14, in my attempt to develop such a notability guideline, I wrote up a draft of the survey that I had suggested to Masem clear back on June 10, and started a thread about it at WT:FICT, which was dead at the time. David Fuchs, Masem, and Collectonian commented. Also on October 14, I added a note about the survey to fiction notice, Collectonian reverted. A week later, on October 21, I re-added a note about the survey to fiction notice, Collectonian reverted. I re-added, Collectonian reverted. I wanted people to be aware of the survey so they could offer their input and edit it before it went live, unlike when Randomran started the RFC on N. Also on October 21, I asked arbitrator Stephen Bain about the survey, and got no response. On October 22, I started a thread about the survey at the village pump, and two people did comment on the talk page of the survey.

On October 23, the RFC on N closed. Phil Sandifer's request for extension was archived by Rlevse on October 24 after Stephen Bain and FloNight rejected the request and no other Arbcom members commented. On October 27 I asked Phil Sandifer about the survey I wrote, on October 28 he said at WT:FICT, "I support a survey along these lines...That said, I think this survey is far too long, and far too demanding, and that it is not likely to work." 39 minutes later, Phil Sandifer created User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction proposal.

On November 21, Phil Sandifer used his admin tools and unprotected WP:FICT and moved his proposal over and added a note to fiction notice &mdash; and that's the version of FICT you're supporting now. TTN hasn't edited since December 26. But I did ask Masem if he knew where TTN was.

A while ago, I told Masem about the changes to WP:V that came about after your thread about UGOPlayer at WT:V. I am talking about "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I mentioned you and said "It's just another poor policy change that came about because of Hiding, done without considering the ramifications for Wikipedia's 2.6 million+ articles." That's honestly the way I feel and I thought I should tell you personally, rather than you finding out yourself or from someone else. If I've insulted you, I'm sorry. If I think a policy is bad, I don't know how to tell the person who wrote it without possibly hurting their feelings.

I've thought of two policy proposals recently, but I'm lost on PLOT at this point, aside from contacting as many editors as I can about it, although that would not be a good idea while my user RFC is going on. I know you've suggested a poll in the past but you noted you were being ignored. Perhaps I should walk away from the issue. Perhaps I should agree not to edit or comment on any of Wikipedia's 300+ policies or guidelines for a year. Perhaps I should leave Wikipedia for six months or more. I know I should contribute to article space more. I think my replies to people can be long, but certainly no longer than Masem's. I've said rude things, but typically only when spoken to rudely. I should turn the other cheek, but I don't. I should not edit war on policy pages. Perhaps I should leave altogether.

I'm tired. So very tired. I feel like I am in Bizarro World. Randomran suggested I offer to rewrite PLOT and when I did at the talkpage of my user RFC, Masem copied it over to WT:NOT and mentioned my user RFC. That may have something to do with the fact that I begged Masem to find an admin coach. I asked Masem to remove the thread from WT:NOT, and I got jumped on. I am just about done with Wikipedia at this point.

You're an administrator, and if you have any advice you could offer me, I would appreciate it. You can email me if you like. Thanks. Although I would understand if you avoid me like the plague. Sorry for unloading on you. --Pixelface (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fict guideline
Hiding, I hope you don't mind, I changed your 3-level heading ("commissioning") over at the RFC on the fiction notability guideline to a 2-level heading. Since it's showing up at the top of people's watchlists now, I wanted people to be able to click on the section for voting, scroll to the end, and vote. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hiding T 09:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

R's Journal in The Watchmen
Hey Hiding. I don't know if you still care, but I have raised an RFC about this:  I'll let the outcome of that determine whether or not I continue to defend inclusion of the journal. --Bertrc (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiction wiki
I noticed your comments on Pixelface's talk page.

A long while back there were discussions at expert retention about various brainstorming ideas.

Anyway, back then, I came up with a spark of an idea. What little is actually on-wiki is archived at User talk:Jc37/Proposals/WikiWorks.

Hope you find it interesting at least : ) - jc37 08:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye, it is certainly interesting. I've bandied the idea around for a while now myself.  The problem now is that people just equate the idea with wikia, when it shouldn't be.  It should be not-for profit, even if it is ad-funded.  I think it could get off the ground if there was a suitable critical mass gathered. A decent sales pitch and model wouldn't be that hard to write. Hiding T 12:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, from my reading of such things at meta, it needn't even be ad supported. All a sister project needs is a group of interetsed editors, and "buy in" from "the powers that be".


 * The main stumbling block in the past was the search engine, but that's being dealt with as we speak. The whole "global log in" thing actually makes this even more of a feasibility. And more so every day, with each new upgrade. - jc37 10:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to do it through the foundation, then yes, all you need is buy in. Whether you can get that buy in is another matter.  For a fork, a model of some sort is needed.  Depends which way to go.  From where I sit, I am of the impression that if the foundation were going to back it, they would have done so by now. But if I am wrong on that front, I am more than happy for someone to prove it and would support efforts to do so.  Hiding T 10:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. Though it's also possible that no one has proposed this simply because it hasn't been thought of this way. Atm, they're proposing the reverse: Splitting BLP and other "real life" things (like companies) from Wikipedia.
 * So I dunno.
 * But on the other hand, I dunno if I'm up for the energy required for such a discussion at the moment. I'm still somewhat drained from my recent experience trying to be helpful at RFCU/SPI. Maybe later... - jc37 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are they proposing that? Ack. I don;'t think I'd like that. As to whether this has been thought of before, I'm sure it has. Here: . Hiding T 13:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A thread about plot summaries at WT:NOT
There's currently a thread about plot summaries at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Since you're the editor who added WP:NOT to What Wikipedia is not, I thought you might want to know about it. I also mentioned your name there. --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in that argument any more. Thanks for thinking of me though. Maybe it is time you moved on from it too? Hiding T 09:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfair
I think that the block imposed by Nightscream is a knee jerk reaction, and unfair to say the least. If you review this editor's Talk Page, you will see he has made a number of questionable calls as an administrator, and been queried regarding them. In the short term, I believe that the block needs to be reviewed as he has totally ignored the discussion I linked for him - which shows the articles are moving in another direction. It would have been nice if he had joined the discussion first, given that I have already reworked several articles. Is this really helping things move along? I also reject the claim that I am unreasonable, given that I sought an outside opinion on the Ms. Marvel image and am willing to accept that advice. In the long term, I really think Nightscream's administrator role needs to be reviewed. He means well, but he is far too emotive and the blocks smack of payback.

For your consideration.

Asgardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.179.34 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I think you might need to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emperor#Asgardian

as both Jc37 and yourself are mentioned, and I think it says a great deal about the mindset of Nightscream and what he thinks his role as an administrator is.

Regards

Asgardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.179.34 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don;t think I am the right person to take this forwards for you, to be honest. You are probably better polacing an unblock template on your page and getting a neutral admin to review the situation.  Given my history with both yourself and Nightscream, I am not the one to mediate between the two of you.  I also believe your recent behaviour is far from exemplary.  The edit history of Rhino (comics) alone indicates you still have serious issues with WP:OWN which do not seem to have been resolved in the time you have been here.  I'm not sure how much longer people can point you to policy pages without you actually taking them on board and modifying your behaviour appropriately. Hiding T 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the honesty. I've posted my reply to the block on my Talk Page. If I've gotten the formatting wrong (reply in brackets) please by all means correct it so it can be seen by an independent editor. As for Rhino...no, I don't think I own it. I just want it to be better. I even took on board the suggestion by Peregrine Fisher and pulled the titles and dates into Reference format to make for easier reading. I'm trying, friend. Comics is just a passion of mine and well... I see a bad article and think "Ha! Full rewrite!"

Asgardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.213.160 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

List of minor...
Putting my money where my mouth is, as well as with an eye to previous discussion we've had, I made:


 * List of 2000 AD stories
 * List of minor 2000 AD stories

The former is a simple list of all stories (OK it isn't comprehensive as some were just throw away one-offs, some a page or two, which I'm not going to mention unless there is something worth saying about it) and then any that don't have their own articles can go in a section on the minor stories page. The latter is just an outline at the moment but I am aiming for a bit of background, a bit of plot and a mention of the publication history and reprinting (a lot has got republished in the Extreme Editions, which continues with the free book in the Megazine). It should stop articles on very minor stories from spinning off but it can also provide somewhere were we can marshal material (interviews, reviews) and see if anything is worth splitting off. For now I'll be largely expanding the sections and also taking a look at some of the articles with an eye to a bold merge - I believe you flagged Bix Barton and I have been wondering about the use of having an article on Go-Machine, for example. Unless I come up with something I'll just merge them in.

So that is the basic structure - a plain list for the titles/characters and then something to scoop up the minor characters/titles, with the redirects being properly categorised so these also show up in the relevant categories (I also leave a note in comments under the section header about which is the incoming link). Clearly doing something like a minor Marvel Comics character list is going to be a bigger job but this is the proof-of-concept and something I think is a viable way of dealing with articles that not only don't meet notability guidelines and don't seem to have a chance of making it (like the articles I flagged on the talk page, who seem to have appeared once or twice). Initially I'm happy to err on the side of caution but there are clearly dozens of characters in particular which are problematic. Anyway just thought I'd show you what I started and if that seems like a good model to follow we can look into rolling this out, presumably with an eye to Marvel characters and then apply it elsewhere like DC characters and titles from smaller companies (we can probably prove notability for most DC/Marvel titles but some of the titles from second and third tier companies are going to be trickier (although if they are recent and have decent PR people they can usually generate enough interest - the big constraint is then the available time we have to track the sources down). (Emperor (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

C-Class
I'd say go for it. I have tried rating everything I come across (anything from a Stub to a B) and there is no massive outcry when you demote an article (and only about 5% of articles marked as B make the grade). I am happy to do a B-class assessment on request and having worked through the more important B-class articles, I would guess there aren't more than half a dozen actual Bs left to assess. Demoting them might get people motivated to either do it themselves or ask for it to be done. Ultimately this should lead to a lot of Cs that have been assessed (there are now more Cs assessed on the B-class criteria than there are assessed Bs) which is an important outcome too as it flags where the articles need more work. (Emperor (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I see this has started as my watchlist lit up like a Christmas tree - I'll keep an eye out in case anyone complains and, if you are someone dropping in to ask about the changes then feel free to drop me a note and I'll come and do a quick assessment. (Emperor (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Interesting
This is merely a thought, and nothing really worth responding to, but I personally found it interesting that the initial AN/I post had "cleansed" all references of discussions with me, or comments by me, from the events. You at least got a mention of being "not very helpful". (Though I suppose I can be comforted that I am noted on Emperor's talk page. And I'll say, being grouped with you, I can feel I'm in good company at least.)

Tongue in cheek aside, I hope that this will go over in the best way possible: education, learning, and simple adjustment of practice thereby. Too often these can turn into drama fests simply due to emotions running high. I'd like to hope that this will be the former and not the latter.

Anyway, I hope you're having a good day. - jc37 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It'll work out one way or the other. I'm starting to work out how to not let it matter so much. Anyway, I'm not so bad, thanks for asking. How's you?  You seem to be withdrawn somewhat lately.  Everything ok? My email works if you prefer that channel. Hiding T 15:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See Black Falcon's talk page for a bit of a response, I guess.
 * I'm still trying to work up the "energy" to even want to look at my watchlist...
 * I'm more empathetic than ever about your wikibreaks of the past.
 * Anyway, RL has "stepped in" a bit (and I suppose I have been allowing it to as well), so not as active atm, but slowly working my way back up to being "active", I guess.
 * And thank you for asking : ) - jc37 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirby: King of Comics
Using our handy-dandy new list of books, I see you have Kirby (King of Comics) by Mark Evanier and I'm wondering what the coverage is like of The Eternals? I am drawing together resources for a big rewrite/expansion of the article (probably breaking the PH down into sections) and, while I have quite a lot of good material, this could be an important source for the Kirby years. I'm just testing the water for now but if there is some good stuff in there I'll give you a nudge sometime. (Emperor (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for that - the Chariots of the Gods bit is crucial as it is obvious to me but it is all about what you can prove and that seems to prove that. I've also got some good stuff from the Kirby Collector and Peter Sanderson, so there looks to be plenty of potential, I just need time to read through everything and bring it all together. (Emperor (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC))


 * That's good stuff and helps fill some gaps. Critical is the ending of the series, as well as its connections with the New Gods. In my searches for material on this I have turned up other material and I'll throw that into the Jack Kirby talk page as it might prove useful for sourcing parts of the article. (Emperor (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I've been trying to flesh out the following articles and wondered if there was anything you had to had which might help: Captain Victory and the Galactic Rangers and Jack Kirby's Galactic Bounty Hunters. Also, although I've not started on it Secret City Saga needs referencing if you stumble across anything. (Emperor (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I've been working through Jack Kirby adding in sources I've found. The only thing that is holding up assessing it as a B is the paragraph on disagreements with Marvel (Jack Kirby). It is an important statement (one of the most important in the article) and potentially controversial, so being unreferenced is a problem. I'm hoping K: KoC has something which can cover this.


 * Also there is plenty of potential for the article Kirby: King of Comics as it crossed over into the mainstream press, for example:, , , and  (and they are the ones that popped up when I was looking for something else - there will be interviews and reviews in the comic press too). (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Comcs by region
But of a weird move/edit on a template you started: as it was. It may have been the subject of a discussion somewhere but as you had it set up it had comics broken down by geographical region and now it has an assorted set of comics articles cobbled on to the top. I was going to revert it all back to the way it was (which was a tightly focused and handy navigation device) but thought I might be missing something so I thought I'd kick it over to you for discussion first. (Emperor (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Signature question...
Just wondering if you know the Wikiquette about user signatures. I'm a little concerned about how User:JayExperience is signing his posts at the TfDs. In one case he's hiding his user name with a comic book character and in another he's doing that and embedding Easter egged links to articles.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is also worth flagging that these are TfDs of templates he created so disguising your identity could be seen as disingenuous (as you'd expect the creator to vote keep and it gives the impression that other, independent, editors approve of it). (Emperor (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC))


 * hrm... poking around...
 * JE added himself as "The Scarecrow" to WikiProject Comics/Participants without the embedded links. He then flipped himself to "Black Manta"  and added himself under the same alias to WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group . And he then dropped the alias for the DC workgroup.
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only guidance I know of is at Username policy and Signatures. Policy is that usernames and signatures should not be confusing or disruptive.  Advice regarding confusing signatures is to ask that user to consider changing their signature to meet the requirements of this guideline. When making such a request, always be polite, and assume good faith. Do not immediately assume that the user has intentionally selected a disruptive or inappropriate signature.  This then affects the user asked to consider amending their sig in the following manner:  If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. Since the success of Wikipedia is based on effective teamwork, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution. That's about all there is.  Sigs should not be confusing.  Constantly rotating a sig can be confusing and can also be disruptive.  Linking to a main space article isn't best practise either, and traditionally there should always be a fairly clear link to the user's user page. There's been instances where people have used a different name in their sig to their username, I recall someone had nearly headless nick/sir nicholas whatever it is, but that user kept the sig static for a very long period.  So it's about showing good faith on both sides.  If the user isn't deliberately trying to be confusing, they won't mind picking one signature and working on a way to make the user page clear. Hiding T 10:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four
Thanks for your support on the successful Spidey GA. :) I've begun some work on Fantastic Four, so that we can get that one promoted as well. Check out the article talk page for some of my thoughts. BOZ (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also picking up on your suggestions Spider-Man: One More Day looks good enough to be put up GA - I've been through it and tweaked some formatting and dropped a couple of thoughts on potential places for a quick polish into the Comics Project talk page (and I see BOZ has already addressed one of those), but it is pretty solid. We should also be able to put Alex Raymond up for review once any material from TCJ has been added. So things are rolling along and we should have one or two GAs on the go at any one time. (Emperor (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Plus, Cirt apparently plans to review Silver Age of Comic Books sooner or later. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries! I think we're starting to build up some momentum now. I've been working on OMD now, and it was good to get Spider-Man promoted. I also noticed you working with the Outstanding content page after I gave it a much needed updating! BOZ (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bits and bobs
On your points:


 * OK great, I'll keep noodling away on that - I have interviews (in TPO, the Megazine and on 2000AD Review) and reviews (2000AD Review and some of the comics sites for the trades, although they are pretty poor on British comics) which should be able to give an idea about background, reception, etc. (I have more on the recent stuff and the occasional older series is pretty thin) so should be able to provide a useful summary for most of them.


 * I think if we are going to collect those other bits together it might be into a separate template as there is no real theme in jamming them together.


 * On Jack Kirby:
 * Yes that is the important bit of the Jack Kirby article to source - it is always difficult territory when discussing motivation, especially when there are disputes like that and it is important to nail them down properly.
 * Also it might be worth seeing what can be found for the section on his later work which looks at his importance for creator-owned work as that seems like an important angle that could be drawn out and expanded, if we have the sources (technically some of those references could work for creator ownership and I'm sure Alan Moore has had a few things to say about it too, there was a kerfuffle over some 2000 AD titles).
 * The Captain Victory, Galactic Bounty Hunters, etc. was a shot in the dark - the material you have about Star Wars is worth putting in, as it has been suggested his Fourth World work was an influence on the film (I'll have a nose through the collected TJKC and see if there is anything there - I don't know who said they had it, Tenebrae or ntnon would be a guess, I am largely using Google Books to go fishing in them. Note the comicbookdb has quite a few of them indexed which might help identify things to chase down. I sometimes wonder how cheeky we could be in asking ToMorrows Publishing if they have a detailed index they can send us - note they also have some articles on their site).
 * Also I'm hoping to get a consensus on splitting out the bibliography: Talk:Jack Kirby


 * I'll confess to not having read much Spider-Man recently (I did read quite a lot when Marvel UK was reprinting it back in the day) but One More Day just needs a read through to check the writing is consistent and up to standard - the actual content seems pretty solid.


 * Thanks for that, I have Alex Raymond on my watchlist but if you give me a nudge when you are done I'll get it nominated for GA straight away. It is looking pretty good and should be fine - it could go all the way once we've exhausted the references just to tone it up a tad.

Anyway thanks for that. (Emperor (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * On the lists of minor characters I found someone has been doing this to a small degree here: List of characters in Starman (comics). We could move that to List of minor DC Comics characters, kill the tables, check the redirects are pointing to the right places and use that as the seed for the article. Equally I could run through the Morlocks (comics) article, as a lot of the characters have very small articles (they are the ones I flagged on the Comics Project talk page) and there are others redirected to the main article, which can again be used as a seed for List of minor Marvel Comics characters. Another example I overlooked was one we set up a while back for similar ends (to head off proliferation of character articles): List of minor characters in Judge Dredd (it could do with more references and more out-of-universe tone but that'd be what I'd be aiming at for the character articles). (Emperor (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC))


 * No problem. I'm in no great rush - it'll get done when it gets done. (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Catching up
Our thread dropped off my talk page, but I just thought I'd check back in. I'm finding that trying to stay focussed on articles and out of the way tasks is a good way of avoiding anything contentious, as it were. I'm not really that bothered any more in which sides wins the latest wiki-drama, since it doesn't impact too much on the actual encyclopedia, which when alls said and done, is all that matters. There's some good collaboration going on at WP:COMICS at the minute that you might like to throw your weight behind? Just a thought. Hiding T 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, there's roughly a dozen (or less) individuals here who could drag bring me back to editing with a message like the above. (And needless to say, you're one of them.)
 * No fair! (insert faux tantrum here)
 * (And if you mention something to kbdank71 about CfD, I may have to poke you : p


 * Anyway, I'll go check out the project shortly.
 * I have to admit, the comics project (of the ones I've dealt with) is the more active, and "typically" more positive (in interaction and just action in general) than several others I've encountered. And though it's not just because of a single person, I think that you have had at least a partial hand in that. And when I consider how "other" sites related to comics typically go, I will say that that is no mean feat.
 * (If we ever decide to nominate a "co-ordinator", as has been suggested for the WikiProjects, you're my first choice.)


 * Anyway, I'll go check it out. Thanks for the head's up. (And incidentally, if ever you see something that you think I'd be interested in, or just that you think I should be "weighing in on", or some such, please feel free to let me know : ) - jc37 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really want any co-ordinators at any WikiProjects I contribute to, least of all me, but thanks for the vote. ;)


 * If you want suggestions, then currently we are trying to get Fantastic Four and Spider-Man: One More Day to GA. Spider-Man: One More Day has just been nominated, so any little thing you can do to help, even just running an eye over for tipoes, would be gratefully received.  Given your expertise, you could also run your eyes over the categories on the pages? ;)  Boz has outlined thoughts for the FF article on Talk:Fantastic Four, so you could get some ideas there.  Emperor has ideas for how to take Spider-Man forwards to FA on Talk:Spider-Man, maybe there's something there you can do?  Or you could browse WP:TFD and offer your thoughts on the comics related templates listed there, if you feel brave.  It could be that the next area where a consensus will need to be established is when to create navboxes with regards comics. But you know, if you just want to dip your toe in, you could review Roy of the Rovers and perhaps tell me whether you think it still meets FA criteria. Or... there was some merge discussion at Talk:Peanuts I noticed the other day, or... someone just stuck an orphan tag on Wilson of the Wizard.  I can't see anywhere else to add links to the article, maybe you can?  Or you could run a neutral eye over Simon Jordan, or you could... well, you know. ;) Hiding T 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, those are great suggestions, thank you.
 * Also, see user talk:Kbdank71 for something you might find humourous... - jc37 08:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re
I blank my talk page most of the time, after someone edits it, I have listened J Greb's advice and didn't feel the need to respond. Black Manta 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already fixed it. Black Manta 08:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't, but I will now. Black Manta 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Already taken care of, thanks for the heads up on the whole situation. Black Manta 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally used my username as my sig but I decided to mix it up a bit and change it, the signatures are on my userpage as a time-line of sorts. If it's causing too many problems, maybe I should change it back. Black Manta 09:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Who watches the Watchmen?
I want to make it clear that I'm not objecting to the information per se, but the type of source. It's one thing to say Geoff Klock thinks the title was inspired by the Juvenal quote. Fine, he can think what he wants. However, what he actually writes is "the last page of the work reveals that the title is actually taken from the Juvenal epigraph . . ." That phrasing is problematic because it lends an authority to the comment. Looking at Klock's footnotes, he's only relying on the story itself for his observations. So how does he know that "the title is actually taken from the Juvenal epigraph"? The trade itself doesn't say that; it just shows the quote. The other sources have problems like this. We don't know for absolute certainty that it was inspired by that very quote unless someone who talked to Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons or even John Higgns says that's exactly what happened. I mean, it seems obvious, and even I personally think that the title most likely is a reference to the quote, but for all we know they ould just been thinking of nightwatchmen then worked the quote in the story because it added some nice symbolism. We don't know either way unless the creators say so. It really coems down to this: can't we find a better source? As someone with a background in history, I have to ask these sorts of questions, so I apologize if this seems like needless aggravation. But we really should find the best sort of source for this. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All sources require discretion. As I wrote on the talk page, you shouldn't use Klock's book to cite information about the making of the comic, because that's not what his book is about. He's giving a reading of the book, not researchign and explaining how it was created. I'm quite aware of WP:Verifiability, and realize full well that even if we found an interview where Moore explains where the title came from he could be lying through his teeth. But my problem is that certain types of sources not suited to verify this information are being used, such as reviews and books of critical analysis. This ties back into the "Reliable sources" section of WP:Verifiability: yeah, these source say that's where the title came from, but how do they know? If they could indicate that they verified this that would help a great deal (this is also why I really like footnotes in books). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got your intention now. My point of view comes from the original comments in the section that were specifically about whether or not this where the title actually for super serious comes from. The current phrasing the article is fine, but I sure as hell would like to verify that this is the actual honest-to-snake god inspiration of the title. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So obvious follow-up: are you going to see the movie? I'm not. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a symbolic summation of my feelings on the subject. Yeah, it woun't be that egregious, but the end result will definitely share similar sentiments. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't been missing out on much, since Zack Synder is basically copying his 300 playbook with this (slow-motion panel uber-accuracy with a few unnecessary plot changes) but once in a while you get stuff like the TV trailer that flashed the words "The world needs its heroes back". I get the feeling whomever made that trailer didn't read the same book I did, if at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson
I was looking for places to link the article, but having difficulty.

The article you cite makes it somewhat more difficult, actually, since it's hard to tell how much of the source is meant to be "tongue in cheek". Did the article's author make up the individuals? Are they people who read back issues and presented the information (making themselves original researchers, or at best conveyers, of information from a primary source), or are they characters from the issues themselves?

As an aside, I read the related article in the telegraph, and I think it presents a nice history of the character.

One of the things that's troublesome is the idea that an orphaned article should be deleted (or at least "tagged" as such), simply because articles which would link to the article haven't been created yet. (Or perhaps themselves have been considered NN by some discussion.)

Not sure how to proceed... - jc37 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The people contributing to the article are readers of The Times contributing their memories, which Bernard Gallagher has chosen to include in his column, and which The Times has deigned to print. The article is both a primary and secondary source depending upon use, like most sources. Original research is a policy for Wikipedia, it doesn't apply to anything published off Wikipedia in any shape or form. I've never seen it as my place to do anything more than summarise sources reliably and allow readers to make up their own minds. I can't have a POV on what a source is telling me, beyond ensuring that I am not given it undue weight. I don't think I am giving undue weight including it in this article.  I didn't really understand why you added the fact tag, to be honest. Are you asking for a cite because you don't believe that within the strip Wilson is shown performing the Fosbury Flop at the 1936 Olympics? He was after all depicted climbing Mount Everest barefoot and backwards, which I can cite to Bale, John. Running Cultures p125 and Socialist Standard p189. Hiding T 12:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was following your thoughts (I think) up until "Original research...". I think you may have misunderstood my questions/comments.
 * I was attempting to determine the reliability of the source for the information placed, is all. If source was (let's say), an Op ed piece, which quoted "some guy said...", then I dunno if we could consider it reliable for the information presented.
 * WP:AGF is a wikipedia thing too, which may possibly not extend to other sources at large : )
 * As for the "fact" question, it's likely due to my lack of interaction with the character. To clarify: Was Wilson published in 1936 doing the flop in 1936, or was this published at some later time, but just indicating that he performed the feat in 1936? If the former, I could link to that in the Fosbury Flop article, else, I can't, as it would then merely be a "pop culture" reference...
 * Does that clarify? - jc37 12:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The character first appeared in issue 1029 Wizard (24 July 1943), so no, he wasn't published in 1936 doing the Fosbury Flop, it would've been published later, most likely as a flashback to 1936. I consider the source itself reliable enough for the material, which is pretty uncontentious: Was a character who was depicted climbing Everest backwards and barefoot also depicted performing the Fosbury Flop.  I'd never rule out anything as a reliable source without context; it's not an area where you can do hypothetical, which is why the guidance on it is so bad and misses the point nine times out of ten; the point of WP:V and WP:NPOV is that we provide the sources so that our readers can judge for themselves what is and isn't the actuality. The point of WP:NOR is that we don;t make stuff up.  But this is getting off the beaten path.  Fosbury Flop is probably not going to be a good article to link back to, because the amount of explaining you have to do to introduce the link means it isn't a good fit. Hiding T 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact tag was a question of whether he was "first", not whether he performed the feat. (Whether this fictional character performed the feat in publication before the feat was performed IRL by a real athelete.) As such, perhaps the text of the article could/should clarify?
 * That aside, I have a vague recollection being in a discussion about sources in which they were arguing how "vetted" the sources in an article in a scientific periodical were, and whether we should trust those sources merely because the periodical did. (Comparisons were made to issues in modern broadcasting and publishing, which has often gotten information incorrect, or worse, in some cases fabricated information. A famous quote by William Randolph Hearst concerning the Spanish American War comes to mind. But as you say above, this is straying off topic : ) - jc37 13:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it to avoid any confusion. Just to clarify, what are your thoughts on describing the character as being the first to climb Everest?
 * Regarding sources, if I haven't made my position absolutely clear, it is as follows. No source should be assumed to be doing anything other than fabricating information. I think David Mitchell covers it better than I ever could in a recent article: "readers should always question the veracity of what they read and the motives of whoever wrote it, and in the internet age more than ever. People who allow themselves to be made credulous by stylish typesetting and a serif font are screwed." Any discussion which starts from a premise other than that is inherently flawed and likely to come to half-cocked conclusions.  Hiding T 13:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needed removing, so much as just explaining. The "tone" and "style" of the comic is something I think worth trying to bring across to readers. And this seems close to the type of comics of as exemplified by "you think so-n-so was the first? It was actually our hero... Let me tell you the "true" story..." I'm just not sure how that can be conveyed (especially since I personally haven't read the series). Ideas welcome : ) - jc37 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it was easier to remove it than to get into convoluted writing trying to couch what happened in a way that isn't supported by the sources to hand. Wilson was. I think, a very British strip, and especially a very British post-war strip. Very much a reaction to postwar Britain, which from all accounts, was a very grey place.  Hiding T 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question...
Where do we go to get TfD closes reviewed?

Some how Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16 and Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16 just dont add up.

- J Greb (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV. - jc37 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied on J Greb's page. I can never keep track of who does unified discussion and who doesn't, as I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. :) Hiding T 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you gave a much better answer than what I did above (though I'm guessing you had more time when you posted yours than I did when posting what I did above : ) - jc37 12:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr Manhattan et al
Given the issues with these... would it be proper to protect the redirects?

- J Greb (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be wise for now. I do think it might be possible to prove notability for some (as the film will make the individuals more likely to be the focus of critical study) but, as I said a while back (and on the talk page I think), the best bet is to expand the sections in the character list and add any useful material there. If they achieve some kind of critical mass we can then discuss a split. Revert warring the redirect isn't the way to get the job done. (Emperor (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Check with User:WesleyDodds, they've done a lot of work on the Watchmen articles and might have some thoughts. I don't know what the wikiquette is on protecting redirects, I know it is done of deleted articles that are constantly recreated. Hiding T 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Century
I'd tend to err on the side of caution and would want to start off targeting the characters that are obviously failing notability (like the Morlock examples I gave) which would allow me to be bold and run through the worst examples redirecting to the minor characters list (rather than fiddling around in the sandbox I could rummage together an outline pretty quickly and we could take it from there). Strictly speaking I'd count the Appendix as an independent third party source which would allow for the removal of the banner (Marvel have used the site as a source, which is good enough for me). That said looking at their appearances it is pretty clear they have pretty much only appeared in and around the Force Works story from 1994-1996 and haven't appeared in anything since, so I can't see what the article is adding that isn't discussed in the main article for the story and I'd flag this as something for the second pass on merging and might be something we'd have to put up for merger (although I suspect we could still swing bold for this one), possibly in a batch - they could be controversial and I'd want a consensus behind me to stop painful back and forth redirecting/unredirecting. It might be worth sandboxing a list of characters for this second batch of mergers (I have noted a few down for the first wave on my computer but might as well open it up to others to contribute) - I'll sort this out later.

Thanks for the other additions, I'll read through them in an hour or so. (Emperor (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I've made a start. As should be obvious (considering that is just me running through one article) erring on the side of caution could also be seen as not making a vast job for yourself. I suspect with some digging (going through the Marvel/DC stub articles for example) you could assemble a list of hundreds that you could boldy merge to a list of minor characters.
 * I don't think we can hope to "fix" everything, but perhaps we shouldn't try. What we will do is set things up so there is an alternative to deleting or keeping it (and I have seen many AfDs that have either reached no consensus or deleted the article when there was no such article to merge things to) and things should evolve over time. Of course, if an old character is revitalised (as happens quite often) we can expand the section and consider splitting it off. Equally, it gives us somewhere to start new character articles because it is often not clear if a new character will be notable and sometimes enthusiastic editors will start the article on the off-chance. (Emperor (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * OK I went through Jack Kirby and sourced most of the awards and gave the article a B - the good thing about holding out for an important statement to be sourced is that it passes as a solid B and shouldn't require much to bring it up to a GA nomination (and coverage means it is pretty much assured an A). (Emperor (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Hey
Psst. :) BOZ (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mills
Thanks for the note. I saw this on the 2000 AD forums and will definitely be picking that one up - Nick Dyer's Slaine looks great (I also had a chat with the editors and might be doing something connected with this in the future). It is an interesting development as Mills has always been adamant about people keeping their hands off his creations (there are exceptions - Nemesis the Warlock is off the table) and I wonder if he now feels he is getting more respect for his leading role in British comics. Thrill Power Overload certainly contains an awful lot of setting things straight (from an awful lot of people) and a recurring theme from Pat is the almost permanent war he has been at with editors (like the bit I dug up on Dinosty and it even contains an admission by Andy Diggle that he had overstepped the line (although partly from exasperation - I certainly wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a phone call from Mills!!). So he seems in a happy place at the moment and seems to always have something in 2000 AD at the moment - he even looked remarkably youthful on the John Hicklenton, so perhaps he has made some kind of strange magical discovery ;)

Also I dropped the Kirby: King of Comics information I posted here into a separate area and will add anything else I come across. (Emperor (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Fantastic Four
OK, I did a little more work on Fantastic Four. What else can we do? BOZ (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Act"
Per your comments on CFD, would you mind explaining the "up for dispute and resolved by consensus" thing here? (I noticed your mention of Act of Parliament in the CFD, and had decided to fix it pending a decision...)

I tried to write an explanation along the lines of "we can't infer an external consensus from interpretation of sources" and invoking WP:BRD, but I've been up for many hours & everything I put down ended up being somewhat impolite. I thought having someone relatively uninvolved step in might be better, before I started reverting again and doing something I might regret later!

Thanks muchly. Shimgray | talk | 23:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded, making note of the naming conventions. Hiding T 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm a little bemused this argument is still going on, and at such length, but I suppose we all get worked up over seemingly trivial things! Shimgray | talk | 18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and now I've given in; it was just going around and around in circles. If you feel strongly enough about it, please do feel free to pick up where I left off, but I don't think it's worth your effort! Shimgray | talk | 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Left of
You wouldn't be able to track down the Melody Maker review for R.E.M.'s Reckoning, would you? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not pressing. I just did a few days work on the article and have it up at GAN, but I have enough albums reviews to pass that. I would need it for FAC in the future, but that's a future goal (my priority right should really be finishing a collective rewrite of Unknown Pleasures that I'm trying to get done in time for the album's 30th anniversary). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Melody Maker review for Pearl Jam's Ten; single reviews from NME or MM for "Radio Free Europe", "Heart-Shaped Box", "Losing My Religion", "1979", "Loser". That's all I can think of for the moment, but I'm probably forgeting somethign important. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, your thoughts on this discussion about story spoilers would be appreicated here. Personally, I don't care if parts of the lead are rewritten, but removing "spoilers" entirely from the lead is faintly ridiculous in my opinion, and is backed up by Spoiler. After all, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and over sorts of quality articles have spoilers in the lead, because the purpose of the articles is to educate, not to compell someone into watching a film or reading a story by teasing them with plot hints. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Silver Age of Comic Books
Thanks for your note. I'll try to give the article a quick once-over in the next day or so - if you want anything more substantial, I'm afraid I have a bit of a queue ;) Best, EyeSerene talk 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone
You asked if I would mind toning it down. Yes, I would. I also resent your subtle implication of incivility when I am the one being attacked and stalked.

It is obvious that those edits were accompanied by reviews; the reasons for the re-assessment are described in the edit summary, and the procedures, processes and grading schemes of each individual wikiproject were followed. There is no basis for the complaint that the edits are against consensus or useless to the encyclopedia.

The comment regarding delisting of featured articles is ignorant. Since there is a process for review (WP:FAR), in which I am one of the most active editors. DrKiernan (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in defending the actions of other people, and I don't see myself guilty of any of your accusations. Hopefully you read the rest of my point and can see your concerns have already been conceded.  And if you want my reading of the situation, I think the only person to use the phrase "ignorant morons" was yourself, even though you were alleging other people had used it.  From where I'm sitting, I'm kind of thinking that if you poke a hive with a stick, you can't really complain if you get stung.  That doesn't excuse the bees, granted, but it doesn't excuse the stick either. I think given the nature of your comments, you've fundamentally misunderstood what the debate is about. We're looking to make Wikipedia better.  Isn't it better that more eyes review Wikipedia articles than just those at an FA or GA review? Hiding T 10:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Concerned?
I'm curious as to why you've requested a peer review of Concerned. The reason I'm asking (just to explain) is that we haven't even finished acting on the last big batch of peer input we got (from the failed FA nomination). Perhaps there's something I'm missing about the function of peer reviews? Pi zero (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Oh. Thanks. Pi zero (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't requested a peer review. A peer review was requested by Diego_pmc on 10 September 2008. I'm just updating the banner to reflect that request. Hiding T 10:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the banner tags to reflect that it was an old request. Hope that helps, Hiding T 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Liam Sharp
Cheers for the heads-up. As luck would have it I was just reading it ;) Also I do have a rewrite in the pipeline (and will see if I can tempt ntnon into helping, as we have double-teamed articles like Antony Johnston and Michael Bair before. Should be easy enough to get to a B as I've already done most of the spadework. (Emperor (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Assessments
Thanks for the plethora of recent assessments! I was beginning to feel alone in the darkness when it came to assessments. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't been more active. Hiding T 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it out
Articles for merge - brand new. BOZ (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re copyedit
You're very welcome; I found the article very interesting. All the best, EyeSerene talk 10:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mergers
Thanks for the note - I've added my list (User:Emperor/Sandbox/Minor characters) to the see also.

Worth noting that doing this for Transformers characters is going to be tricky as they appear in other media and they have their own project. However, if we can start getting our house in order, we can always fire them the list and show them some examples of how this can work then it could get them involved with sorting out their articles.

Looking over the two lists, it does look like Marvel Comics should be the easiest to assemble and we can use the lessons learned when we move on to the DC characters. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Sounds like a plan. I'm not making much headway on assessing, the numbers seem to go up everyday, which is a worry. Hiding T 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is annoying (and Sisyphean). I am doing what I stumble across (with a B-class assessment) and trying to make sure all new articles have an assessment and an infobox, so I was hoping it would at least stabilise the numbers. But clearly not. (Emperor (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Warpsmith
Hey, I saw you via my watch on that page. I completely agree with your assessments. I was wondering, though, do you know much about the warpsmiths? I was watching this page because I wanted to find out more and would appreciate if you could direct me anywhere. I only ever saw them in Miracle man, and in two A1 comics (one was a good intro, in which the Qys organized a terrorist attack to embarrass the warpsmiths. The other was an odd pastiche of the Warpsmith mourning rituals) --Bertrc (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the background is given in the two-part story in Warrior (possibly #9-10 without checking) although I am unsure if it really explained anything or just deepened the mystery. (Emperor (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
 * It's been years since I read Warrior, literally. I didn't tend to keep comics back then, and I never really got around to resourcing all aspects of my childhood. So what Emperor says is likely true. Hiding T 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Super-powers
You mean admin super-powers? Ah, no thanks, that's OK, but I do consider the offer is very meaningful. :) BOZ (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thanks again; hopefully you don't have any terminal conditions and no one's out to kill you! Well, I will think about it. If I were to accept, I think I'd be a more laid-back type like Emperor rather than really active in admin-type stuff. First thing's first, I'd have to convince myself that I wouldn't abuse my powers. :) It's probably a bit different than being a minor admin on EN World. :) BOZ (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll give it some thought; (actually, doing a lot of work is how I got the job at EN World, LOL!) I've got a lot going on for the next few weeks, so I'll think about it. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, if I agree to do it, I'll try to be honest about my intentions, and if enough people find a reason to oppose, then I can accept whatever decision consensus arrives at. Well, got to go now, be back in an hour or so. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the poster boy for laid-back admining!! Cool.
 * As Hiding says there are different ways you can use the superpowers and you can be flexible, as time allows. I have found I am using more admin powers more than I thought I would - moving over redirects and fishing through deleted edits are basic but very useful tools (especially combined when you can resurrect the edit history from a merge/move) - I've also brought a number of articles back from the dead because you'll often check a red link and find something that was PRODed that you can prove notability for. So you'd be surprised how useful superpowers are in day-to-day editing and it also means you have other powers at your disposal in case something like a page protection is needed. (Emperor (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh yeah, and I second Hiding's proposal - I was clearly too laid-back there ;) (Emperor (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, I definitely will consider it. It seems I'm popular enough in the right circles. ;) Nothing for the next couple of weeks or so - got too much going on right now IRL. Hopefully things will be more or less normal for me (god willing!) by the 27th or so, so ping me again at that time. :) BOZ (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too : )


 * As an aside...
 * I see how it is, I give him a barnstar, you follow up by offering adminship. So competitive (rofl).


 * Looks like I may have to console myself by poking you again about bureaucratship : p - jc37 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd never pass in a million years, because I don't hang around the right places. And I'm not likely to start doing a lot of Username grunt work or whatever just to get to be a crat. Maybe three years ago I'd've jumped at it, but I've mellowed.  I just want to be an editor now. I want to be here in 20 years time still holding certain things to account, and I think I need to maintain my integrity to do that.  I don;t think I'd maintain that integrity being a 'crat, for one reason or another.  My days of drama are near enough done. The drama would have to be big now, for me to go big in it. But thanks. Hiding T 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. Still leaving you listed here as my opinion isn't likely to change : ) - jc37 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you thought of running for it yourself? From memory, crats always had to self-nom, although that may have changed.  But if you want a nom, I'd join the queue. ;) Hiding T 14:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey now, that's not fair, turning the tables on me like that. (rofl)
 * Seriously though, I don't think I've been back from wikibreak long enough (my experience is that they want candidates who are very active).
 * But wow, thank you very much for the vote of confidence.


 * In the meantime, I'm struggling over a nomination statement for Vegaswikian. (I always am caught in the tug of war between saying too much and feeling like I haven't said enough.) He's been a mainstay at CfD for as long as I can remember, and in my experience is about as cool-headed and fair as they come.
 * (And the clincher is that he's been amazingly patient. I think I've been on two separate wikibreaks since initially asking him...) - jc37 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessing articles
Noticed you assessed William Donahey today, an article I expanded 5 fold on 17 May 2008. Could you assess Jones Law Office and Woodson Law Office if you have some time. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel comfortable assessing articles from projects I have no affiliation with or knowledge of the subject matter. That said, all three articles only really suffer with regards a WP:LEAD.  I think if you follow the guidance offered there, there's no reason I can see with my lack of knowledge that they couldn't all be assessed as B-Class. I'll see if I can tap someone to review them for you. Hiding T 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a request at User talk:TonyTheTiger, I'm hopeful if that user can't do it they will know who can. Hiding T 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have seen him around a lot. That will work. I expanded the leads, so will see what happens. Moving the conversation over here ALL in one spot so someone doesn't think we are Hiding anything. Bet you get all kinds of remarks like this from your User name.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He has passed it and looking it over I'd pass it to. I would look into trying to find something on his death and an obit might provide some other useful information. I also suspect that those images need trimming down to just the ones that illustrate points raised in the article. (Emperor (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

William Donahey
I expanded the lead on the article. Can you give me some ideas what it would take to bring the article to B Class? Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a little tweak to the layout bringing everything under consistent headers and the expanded lead looks better. My only concern is that there is no mention of his death or source for the dates of birth/death which seems a bit odd - I'll have a look around and see what I can find but it'd be handy to find an obituary if possible. That said if the main concern was structure/lead then this might now make a B (although you'd possibly want to mention their death in a solid lead which summarises the article). (Emperor (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Emperior also added source reference for the birth/death dates from the Social Security Death Index. Great job! I also added a couple more color drawings by Donahey to spruce up the article. It should be a B class now (hopefully).--Doug Coldwell talk 17:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen you around for a few of days. Where are you Hiding? he he he (couldn't resist!)--Doug Coldwell talk 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for upgrade to B-Class. I'll go to work on other articles and see if I can't improve them also to higher levels.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Have fun.  I may go back to hiding for awhile. Hiding T 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC) You're Hiding all the time. --Doug Coldwell talk 15:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I remember how that goes: "You can run, but you can't hide", not you can do Hiding, but not Run!.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was "nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide." When I went for a rename, it was a choice between this and "So". I liked the irony and allusion of this more than the instant rebuttal of the other choice. But I think I will quit now, I'm obviously on a hiding to nothing. Hiding T 15:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can hide and go seek, but we will still find your location.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comics by region
Following on from our discussion and the creation of  I reverted the changes so the comics by region box is again just focused on that topic which seems a tidy solution. The other one holds general comics topics like format and genre. (Emperor (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Cool. Hiding T 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jones Comix
Thanks for the note. I tend to only really know the comics inspired by the classic boys and girls comics and I'm always pleasantly surprised to see how many new and experimental small press comics there are. So I've not heard of this and I would have thought it would have been mentioned in the Bugpowder blog (not a sign of notability but a sign it has made a blip on the small press British comics scene) and it hasn't, which is a bad sign. I did a Google and didn't find anything. Their site makes it sound intriguing but it is failing all round. (Emperor (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Ahh interesting.
 * No it wouldn't be a reliable source per se but it would be handy for checking if a title has had any kind of coverage as it is pretty comprehensive (or was ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Brian Giovannini
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Giovannini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability not verified. All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due"" appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or self-published sources such as wikis. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date: 2003...

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Edcolins (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coroners and Justice Bill
Yes I saw the link business and was scratching my head, even though I was aware of the issue from LitG. As far as I can tell it is someone pushing an agenda and, as far as I understand it, there is no impact of the Bill on Watchmen and only a very tangential connection from Lost Girls to Moore to Watchmen.

It does seem worth an article but it would be something I'd personally shy away from as such issues can be the focus of... special interest groups #cough# who would be interested in putting their own spin on such articles (and of course, other people who oppose them). Which, of course, shouldn't stop us from starting articles but it might make keeping it on track and neutral a struggle.

I'll keep an eye out for more coverage. It would also be worth dropping a note into the manga and anime project because there are a small handful of comics that would get hit but it might have impact on a swathe of manga (although to be honest some of the more eye-boggling bizarre and extreme material isn't distributed in the West anyway). (Emperor (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Blimey. I never knew such articles as, Cartoon pornography and Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors existed, but do you think they should have the Comics Project banners added to them? They clearly have impact on underground comics, Lost Girls and manga so would seem to fit, or has this already been done and they were removed? (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Article in the Independent, via FP which links to the petition. So I think it is worth a section somewhere and we can see if it grows and is splitable. (Emperor (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Becoming All-Powerful!
Well, a little more powerful, at least. ;) OK, as discussed previously, I have been considering your offer of support on becoming an admin, thinking about it on occasion during my busy time which has finally begun dying down. With the endorsement of three good admins with whom I have worked and respect, I can't simply say "No" as was my first instinct, so I had to give it some thought.

I could see some uses for admin-powers that would be helpful in what I do. As Emperor mentioned in the previous discussion, I could restore the edit histories of articles for merges (I have asked a couple dozen admins to do this for me previously, and it didn't seem a terribly controversial thing), or likewise for articles deleted via PROD. Moving articles over redirects is another thing he mentioned that would also be useful, as I have on occasion found it frustrating to see an article at a silly name with a better name under a redirect.

However, I'm not sure what else I would do with them, as I think these little things are not enough of a reason for anyone to want to support making me an admin. Perhaps you could give me a better idea of why I, specifically, would be valued as an admin and not just as another regular user? I do a lot of work sometimes, in various ways for my favorite WikiProjects and subjects, but I am not fabulously well acquainted with nor particularly interested in many of these rules that a lot of people put a lot of value in, and operate somewhat with a WP:IAR attitude often enough. I have received a number of barnstars for my activities, and have contributed to over a dozen successful GAs in the last few months, which has been the most rewarding thing I've accomplished on this place.

Also, I don't see myself taking on much in the way of additional responsibilities outside of that which I'd want to help with anyway. I would probably want to help fight vandalism, as well as stop people from inserting clearly POV and OR stuff in articles. I've seen opposes on RfAs where one person or another thinks that someone should be doing something specific before being accepted as an admin, such as the baffling vote in Thumperward's recent RfA where someone said he hadn't spent enough time on newpage patrol (see oppose #32). Silly complaint, I think; I plan to retain free will and do what I will, and not do the things I'm not interested in. :) I may get into AfD closings, although I don't really want to get into closing anything that looks like a delete as I am loathe to do so.

I think my past (and likely about to resume?) interactions with G.c would be a reason for a number of people to oppose me or support me - although, likely as not, such individuals would already be voting that way because of the inclusionist/deletionist partisanship. Other than this individual, I can't say that I've had any real issues with any other users (except that guy who was following G.c around for awhile, oh what's his name anyway, something about Lord of the Flies...) and I think more people like and respect me than not - although I have never guaged it effectively, so I may be in for a surprise. :) I would intend to make my philosophies clear for those who wish to judge me based on that.

So, tell me what you think. (I am open to input from others as well.) I can live with myself either way, just fine. :) If I can provide more and better service to the Wiki as an admin, then great, but otherwise I will continue as I always have. BOZ (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked over several RfAs recently, and yes, the "I thought you were an admin by now!" sentiment does still come up regularly. The tools would be handy to have, and I'm not knocking that. Not having them when you need something done is of course a roadblock. I think I will accept your offer, but I just wanted to discuss first, and get out my feelings. I intend to approach the thing honestly about both my attitude and intentions, because there's really no better way. What is to be said about someone who steps up to take on a responsibility that they may not want, but does it anyway because others think they are the right person to do it? I won't be hurt if it's not successful, unless opposers get really nasty with no provocation - which is why I intend to be honest as I say. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, by the way. :) BOZ (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "What is to be said about someone who steps up to take on a responsibility that they may not want, but does it anyway because others think they are the right person to do it?" surely that is the kind of person we want rather than someone doing it just for chicks, money and power? (Emperor (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Uh... who said I wasn't doing it for chicks, money, and power? You must have me confused with someone else. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting on mine.
 * I should also add that I've always thought wanting to be a politician should automatically disqualify you - I think the system in Legion of Super Heroes worked best - get a computer to pick the best candidates. (Emperor (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Ohhhh, so the truth's out, Hiding really is a computer. : ) - jc37 12:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So, if you still wanted to nominate me, I would accept and we can see where that goes. Otherwise, the status quo never hurt. Either way, thanks again for the initial offer. :) BOZ (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been busy elsewhere. Certainly I'll nominate you. Give me a few days to cogitate on the nomination.  That'll give any co-noms teh chance tojump on the bandwagon. :) Hiding T 13:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [Jumps on] :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New pages
Great - thanks for that. I redlinked Sha (comics) and have more bits and bobs to add to that. Good to see the same editor added the Requiem Chevalier Vampire image. Time to break out the infoboxes. (Emperor (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

AfD
Someone posted to WP:AN a "call to arms", asking all editors to start commenting at AfD. Apparently there are so few commenters that things are now consistently getting relisted?

And so I immediately thought of you : ) - jc37 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that because you want me to get out there and comment, or because of some piece of cynicism I once expressed? ;) Hiding T 12:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... No comment? : ) - jc37 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability in comics
Following on from my comments and previous discussion, should we have an overview page for the Comics Project. For example

What sources are good for what (although we can go into more detail on individual sources in the notes at WP:CMC/REF):


 * Direct primary sources, like a creators blog posts on the creative process (inspiration, etc. as well as production issues) can be used for background but clearly don't contribute to notability.
 * Tertiary sources (like the GCDB) should not be used as footnotes (as they purely draw from the primary source, which is clearly superior) and obviously don't support notability.

How to deal with articles that seem to be failing but look to be worthy of inclusion:


 * Try and improve them
 * Ask at WT:CMC
 * Look into a merge with an appropriate article

I think the underlying principle is to:
 * Improve what we have
 * Preserve what we can

There are clearly going to be articles added that are deletion fodder (comics created by people that only get seen by their friends) but that is usually a pretty minor part of what goes on and usually get a rapid consensus in AfD, our main concern is for everything else.

With that in mind we might as well start "List of minor Marvel Comics characters" (or just "Minor Marvel Comics characters" as it is less of a list) and build it up as we find things - I don't think we necessarily need a long and/or comprehensive list before starting on some of the obvious failing articles (like the ones I flagged on my list). I suspect we'll start to see they start making things smoother (there is a current AfD it come in useful for). (Emperor (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

RE: WikiProject Comics/Participants
Of course - I've missed that, my apologies. Have you already started switching everyone to format? Because I have. If you already have, then you or I can send each other the part's we've started. -- A talk / contribs 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect. You don't have to bother with it now, I'll take care of it. I've already a large bit of it. -- A talk / contribs 23:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, what do you think of this so far? Of course I'm not finished. -- A talk / contribs 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really? I only did it that way because it matched the FA table. Do you prefer the black/white table removed? Because I've already added the table several days ago, and no one's really said anything against it - I assume the table being removed won't change anything. Do you prefer it removed? -- A talk / contribs 18:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Better? -- A talk / contribs 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, and thanks. -- A talk / contribs 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Policy
Hi, I notice you were involved with the defunct WP:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. I've proposed something similar (before I was aware of the old one that doesn't seem to have got off the ground). Perhaps you could comment on my proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals. Comments on what happened to the old project would be helpful. Thanks. Rd232 talk 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tintin
Spielberg's the most famous moviemaker in the world, I'm not sure if we need a pic of him reiterating he's been wanting to make Tintin since the '80s. But the graphic designer in me has an idea to hammer this is a meeting of two filmmaker gods; a picture of Steven saying that, and a picture of Peter with the quote in the caption. I'm really fine with it as it is, but do as you wish if you like my suggestion. Alientraveller (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable?
I probably should have dropped this by here before.
 * Articles for deletion/Brian Giovannini

I honestly don't know if he (or his comic strip) is "notable" (noteworthy?), but if there are actual sources out there, it might be restorable per DRV. Besides wikipedia-like mirrors and the like, the best I could find were sites which "used to" disply the comic strip.

As I said, dunno if it'll prove worth the effort. (And honestly don't recall ever encountering the strip outside of Wikipedia.) But thought it was worth asking your thoughts. - jc37 03:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't turn anything up. I'm seriously considering lists as the way forwards for creators as well as characters. A list of published cartoonists wouldn't be a hard thing, although it would be an incomplete thing. I guess Wikipedia is still considered an exercise in incompleteness, looking at our logo. I mean, there's some wonderful potential interpretations of NPOV in arguing over how to compile such a list... Oops.  That was out loud, wasn't it. I mean for the web, it is harder, but to get your cartoon into syndication implies that you've passed some sort of quality control barrier, and that the list is finite. One to dwell on for a while. Hiding T 10:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * List by medium perhaps? Webcomic, comic strip, comic book, animated cartoon, manga... BOZ (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Charitableness
Could you check out what I wrote in this link; and then refer me to the appropriate administrator. It'll all be clear when you see what I wrote, and please don't forget to read the article if you don't already know what it is. Okay, I'll tell you. Charitable unless I'm from another planet means go out of you're way to help people, which if you read the article sounds more like decency. I mean here I am thinking that this article existing (so that I wouldn't have to write it) solves my problem. And then I realize that this article existing is the source of my (and a lot of editor's problems). Like I said, just go over the article and then what I wrote to see what's going on. Thanks.  Lighthead  þ 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? I'm having a dense moment, so I'm not following you. What is it you are asking me to do? I think the appropriate policy you might be after is WP:CIV, that's the one which I think arb-com was set up to uphold, given they only pronounce on behavioural issues. The page you're pointing me to is an essay, that's allowed to be ignored period.  WP:CIV is a policy you can only ignore by invoking WP:IAR.  See the subtle difference? However, on the subject of talk page questions never getting answered, I think that has to do with a number of reasons.  Sometimes they never get read.  And other times, they never get read by the right people.  Times like this I get reminded of that line in that song.  "I'm a professional cynic but my heart's not in it." If you let me know what you want me to do, I'll see what I can do about doing it. Hiding T 10:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you're right that some things just can't be helped, like for example the right people not reading the questions. But would suggest that I change that charitableness article (or would I get into trouble doing that); because I don't know if you agree that charitableness has nothing to do with not judging a book by it's cover like the article says. Let me know. Thanks.  Lighthead  þ 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect
It is that article,but I disagree with the current name it should be called fata mosque bombing,FATA is arge area,it just like saying 2009 Punjab sri Lankan team attack.will discuss on article talk page. yousaf465

St Lucia Athletic
Hi, I'm not sure why my page doesn't deem worthiness when there's so much useless information on here! Not many sunday league teams can be bothered to actually make a wiki page. I'm pretty sure that all the info I left was accurate too so i don't see what the problem is.

If you could please send me a message saying why my football team, non-league or not, should not be on Wikipedia then I promise not to submit it again.

After all, when information can state that Michael Winner has been killed by crocodiles and yet nothing is done about this blatant lie i don't see why deleting a possible template to a sunday league team's history is a good idea? Iangleave (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: St Lucia's
No worries matey.

You still didn't answer why so much innane drivel that can also be found within books, newspapers and the like is allowed on here but thanks for the quick response anyway.

Keep up your Hitler-esque streak for wiping out 'inferior' pages Iangleave (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Well, you do your homework I got to give it to you. I read Mac Con Midhe, looks good to me, but I say that as a Paddy! Thanks for the spelling fixes by the way, there are probable a few more on my page if you want to revisit....Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bacon is not to everybodys taste, very much an aquired taste. But thanks again for helping out. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MFD
Feel free to close it as soon as it is tomorrow UTC. Now it should stay so everyone gets a chance to see it. There was no DRV, though I could probably open one in the spirit of today. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales

(I apologise in advance, but I just have to : )

So, you closed it as delete...

Could I ask how you weighed the arguments? - jc37 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you're kidding, because everyone knows you just count the votes. Hiding T 09:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, you not only topped me, but I think you owe me a new keyboard... - jc37 10:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Want to run a sweepstake on the date of someone using that close on Jimbo's user page in seriousness. Hiding T 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, cause it's likely gonna happen all too soon... - jc37 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But now that you mention it, by my count it's 29 for delete; 13 for Keep; 6 for merge; 12 to move/redirect; and three to mark historical.
 * Since I obviously want this kept, I will (for a change) not suggest that the votes be counted, and instead think you should weigh the votes differently, and not count them this time so that I can get the closure I want. - jc37 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're going too far now. Everyone knows you disregard votes that don't begin with "d". Did you doze off at cabal training or what? Hiding T 10:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohhh, well, read the keep votes as "detain", the merge results as "disseminate", the move redirect votes as "direct", and the mark historical ones as "Dab". (And the delete ones as "Zither".) - jc37 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But I detained it in the deletion log, disseminated it by casting it to the winds, directed its storage capacity elsewhere and dabbed it redundant. And everyone knows zither, being of germinic origin, is pronounced dsiff-er. Hiding T 10:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Know what else starts with D? DRV : p - jc37 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to wait 364 days. : p Hiding T 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What good is IAR if we have to follow process? Process just gets in the way of things being done right the way I want them done. - jc37 10:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, we probably need to strike this whole discussion. hilarious as it may be to us, I have a few beans here that think they might want to grow into a stalk of some kind. Have a cow you'd like to trade? Oh, you named her "Wikipedia", how appropriate : )

(There's an old cartoon about the car of tomorrow, and when they get to the "seal beam headlights", the response of the animator is what I'm feeling about this discussion right now : ) - jc37 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lornna Soto
I don't see any reason to send this to AfD since you have added a source. That answers the PROD complaint in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's done now. The source wasn't that hard to find, so maybe you'd consider looking for them before you prod? My apologies, I jumped to a conclusion when I shouldn't have. Hiding T 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been doing the exact same PRODding as well, so I'm not sure any apology is needed. Kevin (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Impressive citation
Just to say that I was impressed by your reference to The Treachery of Images. Give yourself the Wikipedia equivalent of a slap on the back. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hiding T 12:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-war
I think this is the first time I've seen an editor argue that, since there is not (yet) a discussion about a contentious revert, edit-warring is therefore the way to go. I'm not sure what to make of your logic, and I'm hoping I've overlooked something. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS, especially the part about editing pages to get to a consensus. Also note, I've been here 4 years before I got accused of edit warring. That's not bad, especially considering I don't tend to edit war and very rarely breach 1RR. Further, I'm curious regarding your logic, because mine is the only talk page you've commented on, and either there are four participants in an edit war or none.  I'd hope you'd at least question people who remove something for a demonstrably false reason, just for balance if nothing else. I always treat all participants in an edit war the same, so much so that I got a lot of flak for it, but I think it is the only way to maintain neutrality, and I would expect to be treated like that in return. Otherwise, by warning only one party you take sides on an issue and lose the air of impartiality. I'd also point you to the relevant policy page on edit warring, and ask you if my actions really meet the text book definition, because in my judgement they don't. Now I'm guessing you came here and started accusing me before I posted to the talk page. Although saying that, I can't see your post to the talk page. I'm happy to stand by my contributions record and my block log, both of which are readily accessible. Still, nice to meet you, Hiding T 15:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were contributing in bad faith, or intentionally causing disruption. I do not think that either is the case. I do think that, on policy pages, after a bold edit has been reverted, no further reverts should be made until consensus has been established through discussion. I've now contributed to the discussion, and I appreciate your input there. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA
I responded on my talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming I can do the accepting now; is it OK to post my responses yet? BOZ (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL - got something I promised I'd post to Drilnoth's RFA first, but I'll be right on it as my responses were ready to go several hours ago. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Contesting PROD
I want to contest this prod. WP:PROD says to complain to you, then go to DRV if you don't undelete it. I've never seen one not speedily undeleted at DRV, so the PROD policy may be out of date. Cheers, Wily D 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This one, too, Wily D 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done and dusted. Complain is the wrong word. You merely need to request it. I can't find the term "complain" in WP:PROD once. The reason we issue guidance to go to DRV is in case I'm not around, I may take a vacation or I may have a Mon-Fri editing pattern or weekends only.  Or you may be contesting a few weeks, months or years later, and I've left.  It's not out of date, it is merely a belt and braces approach. Hiding T 09:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, maybe, though if it's completely uncontraversial I could do it myself or ask J. Random Admin to, rather than open a DRV section. Nominally I'd usually just do it myself, but there's a big kerfuffle so I think I should do everything by the book.  Thanks, Wily D  16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, hadn't realised you were an old-timer. The guidance to go to drv is more there for newbies who may not know a random admin to tap up.  You have my blessing to restore any article I have ever prodded and I will back that all the way, that's part of the process. Just drop me a courtesy note to let me know. If any kerfuffle did develop, you can feel free to point people here. Best, Hiding T 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT
As you were suggesting to give Gavin the benefit of the doubt elsewhere, I'd like you to look over his changes to NOT#PLOT, and whether they meet or change the previous (hard wrought) consensus on the text. (There is also a somewhat related talk page discussion.) - jc37 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT
 * WT:NOT


 * I think the consensus is still emerging, and Gavin is editing within that framework. You've reverted twice without discussing on the talk page, which I'm not a big fan of, and I'm not sure I'd agree there's no consensus on the talk page. They're bouncing off each other, and I think they're all capable of tweaking the text if they don;t like it.  Hiding T 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Now the page is protected. Hiding T 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be seeing more "discussion" on the talk page than I am. I guess I'm just remembering the rather lengthy discussions/debates/etc. which achieved the current text (which I vaguely seem to recall you were a part of). And the current discussion doesn't seem to be anywhere near that. Nor include anywhere near the quantity of people discussiong.
 * (And I'm not sure that I would agree that the discussion itself supports the edits I reverted.)
 * I especially am not certain about using the word "unencyclopedic" in the fashion that it's suggested being used.
 * Anyway, that said, when it comes to WP:NOT (and notability-fiction), I tend to be quite happy to defer to your opinion on the text, due to your extensive past experience with these discussions. So I withdraw my opposition (my "blanket reversion", or whatever you recently called it). And will support the unprotecting. Feel free to point Juliancolton to these comments. - jc37 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I called them blanket reversions or whatever it was because you didn't make any comments on the talk page, and you just reverted, rather than edit the page to better reflect what you felt was consensus. Please participate in the discussion because it is the only way a true consensus can be achieved. I've followed the debates from pillar to post, and Gavin isn't too far off the mark with the thrust, but his language needs tweaking rather than reverting. I'm very much interested in seeing people tweak the text and rewrite, rather than plain revert, because reverting is confrontational. Granted I do it myself aplenty, but there you go.  See the header. But don;t defer to me, I think we differ somewhat on our visions of Wikipedia, and I think it is important you assert your vision in both talking and tweaking policy. Hiding T 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:NOT
One of the purposes of full protection is to prevent editors from exceeding 3RR, which has been exceeded/met several times during this dispute. While it's great that discussion is ongoing, it doesn't help to engage in discussion and edit war simultaneously. Thus, I feel protection is necessary at this time. – Juliancolton  | Talk 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, several users are reverting. Either way, feel free to remove the protection at your own discretion, as you're more familiar with the situation than I am. – Juliancolton  | Talk 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. – Juliancolton  | Talk 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll wait for some feedback before commenting on that thread. Regards, – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DrV
Hi Hiding, Could you go back to the DrV and check out the (new?) sources I've added to the talk page. AFAIK they weren't discussed in depth (if at all) as they aren't on-line. But it now seems clear that he meets WP:N.

Also, I would point out that the closing arguments had a factual error "Almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before" just isn't true. More than half of the arguments included notability or WP:BIO or other inclusion guidelines. Not a huge deal as the issue he raises was significant to the discussion, but maybe not the best teaching moment :-). Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethel Hays
Hi, I'm new to this, but I wonder if you know why the Ethel Hays article you made a small edit on shows the number 200 at the beginning of the article. I see it probably is connected with the image size, but don't know why the number is caused to appear at the top of the text. Artofmine (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I looked there, then did a "null edit" which at least for now seems to have corrected the issue.
 * It's something to do with the infobox. I've asked User:J Greb about it, you might be better off asking him there, because honestly, I have no idea. Hiding T 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Celtstock AfD
Thanks for taking Celtstock to AfD, Hiding. I should have checked if there was a previous PROD on the article. I appreciate you spotting this and doing the work of starting the deletion discussion. Sandolsky (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Hiding T 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FC de Rakt
Thanks for helping to improve the article FC de Rakt. There is currently an AfD vote about it at Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt if you wish to contribute. ðarkun coll 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Had a look. Ta. Hiding T 12:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
A more than the usual explanation for Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player) was greatly appreciated. I wish everybody took the time to explain exactly why they are doing what they are doing. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to strongly concur, after the fact. That's one of the best AfD closure statements I've ever seen. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. Funnily enough, it's why I stopped closing.  It takes time, and by the time you click save, someone else has closed it.  But that's how debates should be closed. Period. Hiding T 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Austen and pixels
I'm not sure what you were trying to do in your recent edit to Chuck Austen, but it didn't work and left a "150" in the text, so I reverted. DS (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:J Greb. Hiding T 12:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

D'oh
I apologize for being cranky toward you in a response (since re-edited) at Template talk:Episode. My edit summary with regard to the revision explicates what was "up". Certainly nothing personal. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nae bother. My terseness didn't help. Hiding T 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenia–Chile relations
I won't contest the prods, the articles. I added a source to the article about some law of double citizenship but I can't expand it because I don't know the details, could you please check it out and make a good description? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the situation. I'm just the admin fulfilling a request. You need to see User:WilyD he wanted them restored. Hiding T 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go ask him --Enric Naval (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RfAr/MZMcBride
I was away for a few days, but have now replied on the noticeboard to your comments about the MZMcBride decision. I hope the response is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it and replied, but frankly, no, it wasn't. Hiding T 09:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Well, thanks for the advice I'll get around to doing just that.  Lighthead  þ 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck with it. Hiding T 09:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Compare link
I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble with Compare link. However, it still works for me (I tried several random articles to confirm). I suspect that one of your other scripts is conflicting. If you comment out everything else, compare link should work. Then, you can reenable everything gradually until you find out what the conflict(s) are. Or, of course, you can just disable compare link. The point is I think the combination is what's causing the error. Superm401 - Talk 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: When prodding
Could you send the link to where I didn't use an edit summary? I don't recall any where I didn't, but obviously there is at least one. :) Apologies. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Patrik Doçi
Patrik Doçi has played in BiH top division. Matthew_hk  t  c  11:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure to what you are referring. Is this an article I have deleted because of WP:PROD? Hiding T 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and restore the version, and may be using afd is better, regarding the notability of BiH top division. Matthew_hk   t  c  11:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll restore the article, but note that prod is an acceptable method for deleting articles. If you disagree with an article which has been proposed for deletion using prod, you are free to remove the template from the article.  I have no opinion on the article, I'm merely deleting it in line with policy. The article is now restored. Hiding T 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

He played in UEFA Cup and Champions League qualifying, passed the notability criteria, please restore the version. Matthew_hk  t  c  11:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. Hiding T 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding
I hate to sound ignorant, but could you possibly point me to an example where I didn't use the edit summary? I'm not questioning you- I have been known to neglect the edit summary before but, just for future reference...! Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I come with the same question. I always try to use an edit summary, whether for prods or not, and have my preferences set to give me a warning if I'm about not to use an edit summary so I can fix it.  LadyofShalott  Weave 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Quiet Monkey Fight
Thanks for offerings- We provide several independent sources from the Improv Festivals we were selected to perform at. This includes Upright Citizens Brigade's Del Close Improv Marathon and the Seattle Festival of Improv. [User:Megapixel] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Regarding in my recent Request for adminship, thank you for nominating me! I hope that I do at least a halfway decent job, at least well enough to make you feel like you made the right decision. :) BOZ (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "You are the editor I think I most wish to be like" is a compliment I'm not sure I deserve, but I'll take it anyway. :) The BLP issue is definitely a big priority, probably bigger than any of the silly ol' stuff we normally like to work on. ;) I keep an eye on WP:FICT out of curiosity, but often enough it just bores me to tears. I largely don't get involved though because it would bring out the bad side in me like it does with so many others - the never ending, rotating battleground that it is. :) BOZ (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding
Cheers, I hadn't realised- I've changed my preferences now to notify me if I leave a blank edit summary. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the clarification! HJ Mitchell (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Boz
Yo, big guy, generally when you nominate someone to become an admin, you actually vote for him too. Just a thought. :) John Carter (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I subscribe to the view that you vote for something that you nominate. By nominating, you have already made your opinion explicitly clear. Maybe if Boz hits 99 and sticks... Hiding T 12:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So what, jc37 get's #50 and you want to show him up by taking #100? ;) Well, I don't think it's getting to 100 unless a bunch of folks start piling on support votes in a hurry - not that I need 100 people to tell me I'm a decent guy. :) Hiding's nomination is more than enough in my book! BOZ (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that I wanted to show anyone up, I just don't tend to nominate and support, it's redundant, and the only reason I could think of is that you were stuck that close to a particular milestone. If I didn't support you, I wouldn't have nominated you, and I trust crat's to recognise that. It's like if you nominate something for deletion, I always think that adding a delete !vote in the debate is a bad thing, because there's no reason to, except for... well, there's no good reason to.  It's obvious the nominator wants the article deleted.  Otherwise they wouldn't have nominated it.  And I speak as someone who nominates articles for deletion with really flabby rationales at times.  Hiding T 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, actually. Thanks for the clarification. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, sometimes people nominate things in a sort of pro forma manner, such as declining a speedy deletion but taking it to get community consensus. I've done that sort of thing without having strong feelings one way or the other about whether the article in question should be deleted, but knowing others do.  LadyofShalott  Weave 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominating pro forma, which I have done countless times, still involves making your intentions known in the nomination text. That's the whole point of using a nomination process. Hiding T 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradicting yourself :P
I've been watching Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars with some interest, and I noticed that you reversed your claims that the list fell afoul of WP:NFCC. Would you mind explaining (probably on the AfD itself) your reasoning for the change of heart? Any closer would probably like the relevant discussions close at hand. Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I referenced WT:NOT, which is where people are calling into question my reading, but I'll expand, sure. Hiding T 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for obliging. Now that you mention it, it is kind of weird that we have a full policy on images and media, but nothing on text (since many of the same arguments, particularly the commercial bit, could apply. Huh.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:NFC applies to text, and WP:NFCC is embedded in it, but it is also a separate page, so I can't quite work it out. But I think there's always been a reluctance to debate the finer points of copyright law as it deals with text on Wikipedia.  The board's legal counsel has stated to one user that "we are not receiving DMCA takedown letters regarding plot summaries, and that plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression".  I think that means the board are fairly relaxed on text when all is said and done. Hiding T 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the numerous episode articles consisting of plot summaries, et al are not a legal issue, but on the chronology pages there is significant possible commercial applications (as witnessed by Star Wars, I can think of three books of the top of my head which have such as appendixes or major parts of the work.) But WP:NFC (besides being guideline not policy) only really deals with copyright violations, rather than any sort of appropriate use. Oh well. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, but I think the consensus on Wikipedia, and across the internet realistically, is that copyright is not that big a deal. I think the Star Wars article really is bordering on copyright violation, but I don't know how to sell that view. Hiding T 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, there doesn't seem to be much guideline support for the view :) At first read-through I was expecting I might close it as a slam-dunk policy violation, but on careful reading there's a lot of stuff that has to be juggled. Oh wells, who see wikilife was easy? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FAQ/Copyright touches lightly on the issue. You might also want to ask around at WikiProject Copyright Cleanup? Actually, I might do that. Hiding T 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you have a reply, here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Explore Kent
You merged this page with Kent County Council. I think I would have merged it too- but with a little round bin. My reasoning is that if we promote this fluff for one KCC department (a statutory function) we should have a section on each department, such as trading standards, audit, environment and waste. Is there a precedent why this must be kept? It strikes me that it is the work of a bored employee who is trying to gain brownie points. Then there is the link to a part of the previous website! Anyway Footpaths is a District Council function. I bow to your experience- but couldn't we just zap it? --ClemRutter (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking me here. If you want to edit the Kent County Council to better comply with Wikipedia policy by removing unsourced material, then that shouldn't be a problem.  It might make sense to post to the talk page explaining your reasons. Any external links you don't feel meet guidance I would think are best removed.  I think if you adopt the bold, revert discuss guidance, and are always prepared to discuss and accept that your way may not be the right way, then you'll find it works out okay one way or the other. If people disagree with you, accept it, or ask other people for their input.  But if you are asking me to delete an article or a redirect out of process, no, sorry, I can't and won't do that. Hiding T 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD
That's some very impressive arguing on the respective AfD pages of Chronology of Star Wars and Star Wars sequel trilogy! I'm not entirely sure what your stance is on the former, though you've clearly stated it on the latter. I couldn't help but chuckle at your comments on infinity and nothing! This is certainly one of the most interesting debates I've had for a while! Kind regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Word association.
Just a quick note to say that your move in the Reverse Association game, associating "Long pig" and "Long Island Sound" to get "Oink" was inspired! It's one of the best I've seen in a long while! Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm sure I;ve been suitably impressed by some of your additions, but this second nothing springs to mind, which is more the failing of old age than anything else. Hiding T 09:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator review
I thought you might like to check it out, I've adapted it for live use... Let's see how it goes =) –xeno talk 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten all about it. Nice to know I do have the occasional useful idea. Hiding T 12:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Crimson aural appendages
No need to respond, just wondering if they are : ) - jc37 09:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Oops, if yours were... : ) - jc37 09:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, a little humour was apparently rather little : )
 * ? Hiding T 09:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing I'm being talked about? And you are too? Hiding T 09:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I used you in an example, and was making a "funny" here.

As I said, no need to reply, just was smiling, and thought to include you : ) - jc37 09:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We meet again. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We do indeed. People will talk. :) Hiding T 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rod (Avenue Q)
I'm a little frustrated about the outcome of the AfD for this article, which you closed today. I understand this is no fault of yours, I just wanted to ask for advice, if you can give any. My frustration stems from a couple of things. First, I have a problem with the fact that five people (The Earwig, JJL, DGG, Benjiboi, and DHowell) all voted against deletion, and yet none of them have ever, ever contributed to the article, and are not likely to volunteer their services to improve it. I am also particularly frustrated with DHowell because it seems that he only joined the discussion to force his inclusionism on everyone else. I don't consider myself a deletionist, but I am sure that I am right in saying that the topic is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article, which is why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. The only sources that DHowell presented are plainly self-publicity, which means that they're not independent of their topic, and I pointed this out at the AfD. DHowell responded by saying that "The guideline does not give an exemption for 'publicity' coverage," when in fact it does. He also said that "None of the newspapers were required to print this 'self-publicity' in their papers, they chose to do so because they felt it was 'worthy of notice'," while seemingly ignoring this part of the guideline. (I unfortunately did not get to put down these repsonses on the AfD page before the discussion was closed, but even if I had, I doubt that it would have changed any votes, and it was clear that not enough people were going to vote on it to sway the consensus one way or the other before it closed.)

I'm going to put a notability tag on the article for now, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Do you have an idea? Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration. However, I think the argument over whether interviews constitute self-promotion is one not adequately presented within guidance and policies, and is therefore not one that can be said to have been settled either way with a clear consensus from the wider community.  The point you make with regards WP:N I would say would also need fuller exploration within a debate, since my unbderstanding of that clause is somewhat different.  I have a feeling DHowell supported a clause along those lines, so I think that user's understanding would also differ. I've already expressed my idea on how to proceed, namely that interested parties continue the discussion at the article talk page to work out the best way to deal with the content of the article, be that merging or retaining as a separate article. There hasn't really been a full exploration of merging the article, one redirect which was reverted and no discussion on the talk page. I'm unclear why this is an issue for afd rather than one for being bold. Hope that has in some way helped. Hiding T 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Deandre Brunston AfD
I was wondering if you could clarify your post on the discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Deandre Brunston. The current "discussion" seems to be mostly people with differences of opinion "talking past" each other. I think it would be helpful to read the whole discussion and clarify exactly how/where we disagree so we can actually reach a consensus. This AfD seems to be headed down the "no consensus" path right now, which I always like to avoid! Thanks! Cazort (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NOT#PLOT
Hi Hiding, In a summary on NOT#PLOT you wrote: strike, its obvious too many people favour battleground tactics which should be abhorrent per policy I was A) wondering what prompted that and B) if you feel I'm doing something wrong in those discussions. You seem like a reasonable (if cranky :-) ) person, so I thought I'd ask for a reality check. Thanks. Hobit (talk)


 * You're doing fine. I'm just cranky.  Let's just say I've sopped assuming good faith in the idea that we're all working towards some sort of consensus which involves a compromise. This is quite clearly an ideological split which can't be readily healed because nobody is interested in talking to each other without first drwing a line in the sand.  I've had it with that. What the limits are on when an article is good enough and when it has had long enough to be cleaned up are I don't know, but the debate has moved way too far away from people simply saying, you know what, for me, this article just shouldn't stay around in its current condition.  YMMV. It's become a tactical ideological war of attrition.  SO not what we're supposed to be about.  I don't want any part of it. I should imagine the next stage in the debate will be to argue over what the consensus is in the rfc, and whether that means it should be removed or not.  I'm cranky. I'm fed up of seeing my name dragged out at every opportunity, I'm just fed up of all of it. Eventually one side will win, and that will actually be the worst thing that could possibly happen.  The only thing that will save Wikipedia is finding a middle ground.  Remembering that we collaborate and that that means sharing.  Hiding T 09:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, and when crankiness fades I hope to see your "middle-ground" self around. More folks who are honestly in the middle are needed. Hobit (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on a way of notifying all WikiProjects with your notice. We'll see how things develop from there. Hiding T 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on the policy draft
Hi, T Hiding. You may be interested to know that this RFC is about to be launched on the talk page, with Kirill's knowledge ... except that I'm unsure how to launch it!

Your concerns appear to go further than the topic of the RFC, but I wanted to constrain its scope to directly relevant issues of the structure and conduct of hearings. Tony  (talk)  09:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you seen Advertising discussions? I see you've posted a request to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details.  I'll comment there. Hiding T 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary posting about RfC
WikiProjects Afghanistan and Alternative Views really do not need such a notification. I notice that you state in your mass posting an apology for having to post to ALL WikiProjects. This seems like lack of discernment to me. Surely, the WikiProjects to which such a notification is posted could be radically limited? __meco (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, such canvassing is such a contested issue that it's better to either do all or none.  And since it was already started, it's better to do all. And realistically, this is an issue which affects every Wikipedian, because it decides standards regarding our coverage. This is your chance to help heal divisions within the project. Hiding T 13:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that Spam is considered better than systematic bias. Please explain how a project concerned with a real life sport would be interested in a discussion on plot summaries in fictional material?  It doesn't "decide standards regarding our coverage", as that standard rarely, if ever, applies to WP:AFL.  The-Pope (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a rather "head in the sand" approach, isn't it? If we're trying to build the widest consensus possible, is that helped by cherry picking the audience or attempting to involve as many people as possible. I have already apologised for the minor inconvenience the posting has caused, but I am perfectly happy to do so again.  I apologise for what you believe to be an unncessary posting, however it was done to avoid systemic bias. Hiding T 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ceased
In case anyone else has found the postings disruptive, I would like to point out I have ceased them apart from to WikiProjects related to culture and the arts. Hiding T 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts
I'd appreciate your input on the problems with Jess Nevins - as he explained at User_talk:Jessnevins he is editing his own article with vandalism and then immediately reverting it as an example in class on how easy it is to vandalise Wikipedia, or something like that. He was banned for this and if you look at the page's history you'll see two other accounts (the most recent one banned) and a couple of IPs all of which are doing the same. The accounts are clearly his sock puppets carrying right on where he left off.

Now Jess Nevins clearly has a lot he could contribute and I'd love to find a way to win him around because the next would be checkuser, blocks and locking the page down so anonymous IPs. I have now tried this twice now (as did I and another editor at User talk:Kenfuruta). I have tried everything I can but thought there might be another way. Also would it be worth undeleting User_talk:Jessnevins as it does explain what is going on?

Feel free to reply here (I'll point another editor here too) (Emperor (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC))


 * It's a classic example of WP:POINT. I'd be curious to know what he is teaching exactly, because he doesn't seem to be teaching them how to revert on Wikipedia or add useful information. It seems like a very biased class if he's only showing people how to vandalise.  One wonders if he also teaches people how to graffitti the library before just as assiduously cleaning it off. I don't think there's much value in trying to win Jess around, to be honest.  He hasn't responded to the messages at User talk:Kenfuruta.  I would recommend we use this as a teaching exercise too, and allow his pupils to see that Wikipedia actually values itself.  I have no issue with someone giving a fair appraisal of Wikipedia, but that would be the same appraisal you give about anything; give them the pros and cons, and let them make their own mind up. Buyer beware. I'd suggest semi-protecting the article, but I'd like to see all BLP articles semi-protected anyway.  Do you think Jess is notable enough for an article? That article is as far as I can see built entirely from primary source. Hiding T 07:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points:
 * It may also be that locking down his article and rooting out all his accounts might also help with learning - the point is it isn't just easy to vandalise but easy to contribute to - I recall something somewhere about someone who has been given a class project to significantly improve an article, which seems a much better approach, It might also be that if he can no longer mess around with his own article he might look into more positive contributions - he'd have to agree to this in an unblock request.
 * Yes looking through the article it is problematic - it'd be worth returning to this later, I'd hate to think that trying to address these problems be seen as making a point ourselves ;) It is a useful article and strikes me as one that is notable, no one has really dug up the interviews and reviews required to demonstrate it. Of course, Jess Nevins would be the best person to ask for help on this but that all gets circular.
 * I'll ask around but locking it down seems like the best approach (I'd have done this already if it hadn't been such an odd case). (Emperor (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I would agree that locking the article down would be a good approach if he doesn't agree to stop or until he does agree. This article is the only one that he has did this to, and now knowing his full intentions, I don't believe that he would do it to other articles. He might then decide to make his point by one of the suggested methods. If he agreed to stop, then it likely wouldn't be an issue and protection wouldn't be necessary. Given his prior straight-forwardness (now deleted), I think that we would be able to take him at his word. I would also agree that the article is likely notable enough to keep. Jess Nevins does get several Google News hits, and while all of them are not this Nevins, a number of them are. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: New Romanticism
Thank you for the message on my talk page. After due consideration, I have revised my earlier decision and semi-protected the article for 36 hours. Please take this time to generate consensus on the talk page, that way if the IP resumes POV-pushing once protection expires, you can warn him or her (a la the uw-npov1 series of warnings) and then report the IP as necessary to WP:AIV (note that administrators processing AIV reports have a quick and easy time adjudicating block requests where an editor or IP has ignored four escalating levels of warnings and still continued their disruptive editing, especially if diffs are supplied that show the disruptive behavior). Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Something I'm working on
I've been working on trying to create a unified guideline for what fiction articles are - something that's more fundamental than WAF (which is just a MoS for fiction), and instead deals with the basic problem of what it means to cover things that are not real in an encyclopedia, and what fundamental issues that involves. My hope is that by clarifying that, dealing with the notability issue becomes easier. I've got a draft at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction. I'd welcome any comments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I have a question. Is there a way to find deleted articles. I am talking in reference to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam. This article was initially created on April 4th 2009 and was deleted on April 8th 2009 on the grounds that it was not encyclopedic and the message also said don't recreate this article again. The very same day User:White_Adept added it back. He is a POV pusher who is not afraid to break wikipedia rules and even arbitration rulings. This article was part of the Sathya Sai Baba article. It was later removed due to unreliability and BLP concerns. Most of the sources used for this article are unreliable and also include banned material from the Sathya Sai Baba article. If we can find the deleted copy I think this article may qualify for speedy deletion as it was already deleted once. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was deleted through the proposed deletion process, which means it can't be deleted again as a recreation, but rather it must be taken to articles for deletion. I had concerns about the article myself, but after asking around no-one seemed to share them. Hope that has helped you. Hiding T 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources
If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advising or contributing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprised and Confused
Hello Mr. Hiding,

I'm surprised and confused of your act of deletion of Mushfiqul Alam page suddenly which had been reviwed by many editors for years! You could delete the parts of the article that you thought inappropiate but deleting the full page really surprised me. Could you please undelete the page with contents that passes Wiki Guidelines at least?

Wikibd (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Wikebd


 * Your confusion seems to indicate that your unaware of the proposed deletion process. This process allows apage to be deleted after it has been tagged for deletion for five days. So all I did was delete it after five days per process. The page has been undeleted per process too, because with proposed deletion, any objection to the deletion means it should not happen.  If you have an issue with the tags on the article or the content, then I suggest you address those in the article or with User talk:Ragib who proposed the article for deletion.  Best, Hiding T 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mr. Hiding for restoring the article. Wikibd (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Wikibd

Dear Mr. Hiding,

It appears User:Ragib became angry after you restored the article and destroying even his own earlier edits and reviews of the article. Even after I added information with public references, he is deleting those. His thoughts for reference is limited by Internet only. Newspapers of Bangladesh don't publish everything on the Internet that they publish at their paper versions. He is also thinking I'm "Mr. Mushfiq" which I am not actually!

Can you help to protect the article from the arrogant person? Wikibd (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Wikibd

plot discussions
Progress is slow at WP:NOT, but it's there. There are a number of people who are now talking about middle ground, rather than pushing for one of the 50/50 options to win out. My advice is to distinguish the consensus builders from those who are simply trying to score points in a debate with no judges. You'll be able to tell the consensus builders because they'll admit there's no consensus to outright remove the policy, but they'll also be supportive (or at least accepting) of a re-write or move. You'll be able to recognize the debate club if they're still trying to argue about whether to keep it at all.

Don't take the WP:Bait. If you see a comment from someone who is trying to stonewall or filibuster the discussion -- inclusionist or deletionist -- try to ignore it. If you absolutely can't, my advice is to keep your reply to one line or less, explaining that you don't think their viewpoint has consensus, and/or advising them to focus on something that does.

It looks like you've scaled back your time at WP:NOT. But if you find yourself with the time to join back in, try to throw your weight behind people pushing for a compromise. Reward open-mindedness with your attention. Don't reward trolling, filibustering, and obstructionism, or you'll just end up in a long debate that drags the conversation towards "no consensus". (Reply back here.) Randomran (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight for primary sources
Could you discuss your recent change to WP:FICT on the talk page? My understanding is that previous wording was cribbed from WP:INUNIVERSE, so I am not sure why you are reverting it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me aware of the inconsistency with WAF. Have removed it there too, detailing on both talk pages why. Hiding T 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think changing a guideline just to reinforce your view is not a sound practise. I disagree with both your changes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to disagree with both my changes. I have detailed them both on the respective talk pages.  I think characterising someone's actions in a manner which strengthens your own preferred view is equally not sound practise.  Hiding T 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recent canvassing though. Hiding T 15:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not canvassing per se, I am merely bring attention the changes you have made the have reverted those made by previous editors. Maybe you should try this yourself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROJPOL
Hi, since you were involved in something similar before (which never went anywhere), I thought I'd let you know that WP:PROJPOL is in the painful process of being born. If you could help out and give it some chance of survival, that would be cool. Rd232 talk 01:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

quick note
Just a quick note to say I enjoyed your essay User:Hiding/What notability is not and found it to be helpful. Thanks for writing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Thought you might be interested. - jc37 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution

Update
I had spoken to you about the following article some time back - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam. Finally this article is being discussed for being deleted. I would appreciate greatly if you could contribute to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam. I do really hope this article is successfully deleted. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kirby GA
It is being reviewed now. There are quite a few requests for content and I was wondering if you had anything that could help. Cheers. (Emperor (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Queries from Pixelface
copied across from WT:NOT

DreamGuy brought up plot and I told him who created that template and when. And I didn't know who created that template until DreamGuy brought it up and I looked. I don't think I called your character into question above (although I did say that you added WP:NOT#PLOT to this policy when there was no consensus for it to be policy, and I've already explained my view of that to you on this talkpage, and at User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT ). If you want to dig out some diffs, you may find this edit range of yours (and this edit range to your talkpage) useful. Personally, I'd like to know more about the events leading up to your WP:NOT#PLOT proposal, like this thread at WT:COMICS, this thread at WT:COMICS, this thread at WT:WAF you created, and maybe even some of the events surrounding Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. I'd be happy if you set the record straight. It seems to me that your WP:NOT#PLOT proposal was about issues editors were having at WikiProject Comics. If someone wants to propose WP:NOT#PLOT as WikiProject Comics guidance over at WT:COMICS, fine with me &mdash; but then you'd have to explain how WP:NOT relates to this article, which survived this AFD (which you signed off on). Category:Storylines in comics has 329 articles under it.. Looking through AFDs for articles in Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, I have not found any where there was consensus to delete. Besides, Category:Fiction is much bigger than just comics. Why should every article under Category:Fiction (which had over 1.07 million articles under it as of April 16, 2009) have to suffer because of some petty arguments in a thread at WikiProject Comics where ChrisGriswold and Markeer mentioned making a policy?

Quick thoughts

 * I'd like the "right to reply" within the text at User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT.
 * Don't recall Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic having much to do with anything related to PLOT. That was about two users who couldn't work out how to collaborate.
 * This edit seems to speak for itself well enough.
 * this also seems to argue its points as well.
 * Events leading up to me proposing PLOT? Hmm. Okay.  I registered an account, what, May 2005? I followed WP:V and the other guidance and policies from the start.  I got confused when other people didn't. I tried to work out if we were supposed to follow the guidance, and I asked around and I read a lot of historical pages and the page history of a lot of policy and guidance pages, or whatever they were called back then, and I ascertained the consensus on the general thrust of Wikipedia, and what the goal was.  So then I tried to propose things which would help achieve that goal, since all around me fellow editors were doing the same, and some proposals flew, and some didn't, and some catch the wind every now and then but on other instances crash into the ground only to soar again into the sky.  I think PLOT is one of the latter. So when you put it into that context, look how different it becomes.  It becomes just one of those things. If you're asking what problem was it trying to solve... the answer is different for every editor who reads it.  And that's the thing about Wikipedia.  I don't own those words.  My motives, my actions, are meaningless. They have no importance.  It is the consensus that matters. It doesn't matter that I proposed PLOT that day because it was raining and I couldn't go outside so I stayed indoors and I... It doesn't matter that a sign, a neon sign, lit above my head... it doesn't matter that the Arch-Angel Gabriel delivered the exact wording to me in a dream as a message from God... None of it matters. What is it you want to understand?  Why is there a mountain instead of no mountain? I don't get the question.  As Midge Ure once said, "this means nothing to me". What inspired PLOT?  The "policy/rule to consider" Wikipedia:Check your fiction. It's been around for a long, long year, stole many a mans soul and faith. I guess then we discover that the person at fault is actually the Foundation's current Deputy Director. You should see me from your ivory tower.
 * AFD's. I signed off on the close, not on the outcome. God knows why now.  I think back then there was an idea in the air that non-admin closing should be rare and signed off.  Maybe I wanted to try and draw a line under the debate.  Who knows?  How does it relate to WP:PLOT?  Who can say?  Are you a psycho-analyst?  I'm not, and I have no interest in talking to one.  I did what I did. That's the long and short of it.  What I like about this long line of edits is how they are all so tightly focussed.  There's a clear lack of the wider context. Who am I?  Don't know, but looking at Requests_for_adminship/Hiding, especially my answers to questions 2 and 3, I don't think I have betrayed those standards as yet.
 * I guess what you are looking for is motive. The motive was trying to get encyclopedic articles as the goal. My over-riding impetus was to achieve the aims of Wikipedia.
 * Was PLOT localised to comics? No.  Not in the slightest. If that were true, this issue wouldn't be so divisive.
 * Why do I feel like my character is called into question? Because from where I sit it is like you are attempting to present an underlying motive.  I think because you disagree so fundamentally with the outcome of what I did, it prevents you from contextualising what I did with phrases such as "when I feel there was no consensus" as opposed to "when there was no consensus". For me, I just did what I did.  It might have gone different if it happened today, or if you were there then.  But you weren't. I was.  I tried to do what I felt was in the best interests of everyone. I have long since realised some people are just here for the fight.  It's sucked the love of Wikipedia out of me. Look at how badly my main space contribs have declined. I hate it.  I hate having to argue every damn little thing. For me, that wasn't the point.  We were supposed to be collaborating on writing an encyclopedia. Why don't I leave?  Good question. I'm certainly at the wrong end of the age curve.
 * And Category:Fiction? A better category is Category:Fictional. Remind me again how to count it. Although I reject the idea that we're talking about the suffering of 1 million articles.  I also reject the idea that the notion of "1 million" articles is at all relevant.  How many articles does a change to WP:NPOV affect?  And yet, it changes...
 * Was any argument petty? Obviously not.  From where I sit, if you want to know who to blame for WP:PLOT, start here, although that doesn't cover the half of it. You'd need all the anon's too.  Although sometimes, as experience has taught me, a lot of those different names relate to the same person. So much so it is now hard not to start wondering of every user if they used to be/are in fact also... I always wonder if Badlydrawnjeff ever came back. But thoughts like that lead you nowhere good, and what does it matter if he/she did? And just what happened to User:Ace Class Shadow? Anyway, what was the point?  Ah. You believe Wikipedia suffers because of petty argument. T'ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It). Sorry, I appreciate I've rambled and segued and introduced flights of fancy and streams of consciousness. That's just how I feel today. As My Bloody Valentine said, No More Sorry, or as the long lost but not forgotten Richey James Edwards had it, Even cheap dreams don't stop the rain. If all else fails, fall back on The Pixies.  It's educational. Best wishes... Hiding T 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I am really sorry for that. I left my table for 15 minutes, when I come back, my PC is in the sleeping mode and I just clicked the mouse, and then continue my work. Haven't that I noticed that I inadvertently click the screen in which the cursor is pointed on the rollback feature. Again, I am really sorry. I just reviewed my watchlist and saw that I have a message, and really did not know that I made a mistake. I really apologize for my carelessness. I hope I can keep up with that.

Again, sorry. I never intended to do the reversion. Really really sorry that you have to undo my edit. - One big walking mistake, ax (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Michel Vaillant
Got anything for this one? It's up at GA and needs some work. BOZ (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on checkuser
I was just wondering what you thought about what I say here:, there looks to be a lot of suspicious activity from a number of SPAs (there are others who edited that page like the "Quiddity" one) which, if confirmed, would breaches of WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY (I'd probably throw in his "media consultant" for good measure). However, I did stumble across after going to add a link I picked up at Lying in the Gutters and the section ("Puppet Government") deals with accusations of sock puppetry directed at the subject of the article, so I wanted a second set of eyes on it to make sure the piece didn't colour my interpretation (although I'm sure I'd come to the same conclusion if I'd found the link independently) and was wondering what you thought about the strength of the case and whether it is worth running past Checkuser.

Feel free to reply here. (Emperor (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I've no experience with check user, Jc may be the one to ask about that, but I agree with everything your wrote on the talk page and your assesment of the situation. It's probably an idea to gut the article back to WP:V and take it from there. Hope that helps. Hiding T 11:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And the Answer is...
Looks like:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars ‎
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films ‎
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books ‎
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television ‎

Hobit (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fict mediation
I just don't think mediation is an appropriate tool in this case. I think we need to face the reality that fiction notability, as such, is a no consensus issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RFC to get mediation is appropriate either. It seems to me you are attempting to escalate the discussion, but without a constructive proposal to justify this flapping arround, this will lead nowhere. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again I politely request you stop your character assassination and your attempts to second guess me. Please learn to comment on the content rather than the user. Hiding T 12:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am commenting on the content of the RFC. There is no proposal contained in it that would requires any change to WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your words belie the truth of the statement "I am commenting on the content of the RFC": "It seems to me you are attempting to escalate the discussion" and "this flapping arround". Like I say, comment on the content rather than the user, or don't comment at all. If you are unable to refrain from commenting on the user, I will consider re-factoring your comments in line with guidance. Thanks. Hiding T 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Graphic novel Delisted
An article you significantly contributed too, Graphic novel, has been delisted as a Good Article following an individual WP:GAR as part of the GA project quality task force GA Sweeps effort. This reasons this article was delisted have been detailed at Talk:Graphic novel/GA1. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Word before last.
Hello,

I was looking at an edit you made to the game Word Before last [], where you reverted an edit by a user, stating that only one word should be played at a time.

You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the user only added one word to each game, and placed two words to start a new game, both of which are allowed. I originated the game a couple of years ago so I've clarified the rules to say that users should only place one word per game.

Thanks,

Knaw (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Queries from Pixelface
I had a lot more typed up (about the parties of and events surrounding Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic), but I'll leave it out for now. Please don't edit User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT, but you're welcome to copy and paste the text onto a subpage in your userspace and reply in-line there if you would like. I'll even link to your page from /On NOTPLOT if you want.

Here's what I want to know: If "people creating articles specifically to detail plots of individual story arcs" was the problem, did making WP:NOT#PLOT policy solve it? No, it didn't. X-Men: Eve of Destruction is still here. Annihilation (comics) is still here. Superman & Batman: Generations is still here. House of M is still here. Speaking of Planet Hulk, it was redirected by ChrisGriswold on August 10, 2006, unredirected by Gman124 on November 29, 2006 , redirected by Gman124 on December 12, 2006 , unredirected by an IP on December 13, 2006 , redirected by ChrisGriswold on December 28, 2006 , unredirected by Rtkat3 on March 2, 2009 , then redirected by ThuranX on March 3, 2009. It currently redirects to Hulk (comics). Do any of those articles meet the current version (or any version) of WP:NOT#PLOT? Does it even matter if they do or not?

Did turning WP:NOT#PLOT into policy create any problems? Yes. The most notable being E&C1 and E&C2, which created additional problems. Plus, AFD discussions like these being thrown out, discussions being ignored, articles deleted, simply because WP:NOT#PLOT was present in WP:NOT. What I don't understand is why you didn't just write up some WikiProject Comics guidance like you asked about here. You took a specific problem, and then ballooned it to all of of Wikipedia. You did the same thing in April 2006 when you proposed that third-party sources line in WP:V because of one article.

Sometimes people add things to policies and guidelines to win an argument. And I think you may have added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT to win an argument. You said this edit seems to speak for itself well enough. I agree. I think it shows your motive for proposing WP:NOT#PLOT. I also think these two comments of yours at WT:COMICS, which you made days before you proposed WP:NOT#PLOT, show your motive for proposing WP:NOT#PLOT. It looks to me that you were having an argument, and you wanted one up on the other guy. You've done this elsewhere too. You proposed that third-party sources line in WP:V because you wanted to win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article (which was deleted anyway). Please stop editing policies so you can tip an argument in your favor. It's despicable.

Maybe your motives are meaningless, maybe none of it matters. But WP:NOT#PLOT didn't fly in June 2006 and it didn't fly in June 2009 either. So someone created Superman & Batman: Generations I and Superman & Batman: Generations II. And you redirected them to Superman & Batman: Generations. I probably would have redirected them too. But has WP:NOT#PLOT improved Superman & Batman: Generations? By adding WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT, you basically screwed over just about every article under Category:Fiction, because nearly all of them will have a plot summary, and that's often the first thing in an article. Especially when it comes to articles about fictional characters. Topical sentence, plot summary.

You say it's the consensus that matters. Okay. Did the recent straw poll show that WP:NOT#PLOT has consensus to be policy? --Pixelface (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And regarding some of the others things you said here, I look at like this: Category:Storylines in comics has 329 articles in it. If you think there's a "problem" with those articles and you want to propose a policy (or even better, WikiProject guidance) that applies to those 329 articles, fine. But Category:Fiction has over 1 million articles under it. And we are talking about a million articles here. You've edited just over 2,600 articles. Even if you want to dismiss Category:Fiction as a whole, Category:Fictional has over 63,000 articles under it. Go to this tool on the toolserver, type in the category name, and it outputs an article count, searching up to 10 sub-categories deep. Articles under Category:Fictional will certainly have plot summaries. But so will almost every article under Category:Fiction (the 16,000+ articles under Category:Fiction writers being a large exception). How many were created before WP:NOT#PLOT came to be? Why propose a retroactive "solution" to 1,000,000 articles when the problem is 329 articles? Why should any of those articles have to face deletion because someone created House of M (story) years ago? You didn't localize WP:NOT#PLOT to comics. Have you ever considered that that's why the issue has been so divisive? We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia together. Not a rulebook on how to write an encyclopedia. And why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing a rulebook on how to do it anyway? --Pixelface (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

notplot comment
It is my strong belief that the present situation on notplot is unacceptable, and I'd like to be able to work together more to remedy it. Let me clarify what I mean. I do not personally have a strong opinion on the proper way to deal with NOTPLOT. However, it is unacceptable that there is no clear consensus on any direction on the topic, and I believe that this needs to be rectified. With that in mind, I'll make a few comments / requests.

You and others have focused very intensely on the recent straw poll in the RFC. Lets consider, practically, what that straw poll actually does. Consider first that the straw poll was clearly split. There was no consensus in either direction. You have argued that this demonstrates a lack of consensus, which aught to default in the 'do not include' direction. However, remember that there is no binding content resolution on Wikipedia. Thus, even if there is some ideal that policies should be removed if consensus for them becomes questionable (which I take no position on at this time), there is absolutely no way of enforcing that ideal. The only relevant Wikipedia policy is on editing against consensus, not refusing to edit in the absence of consensus, so there is no "conduct" issue that would allow conduct resolution processes such as arbcom to intervene. In a nutshell, what I am saying is that like it or not the only way that we will get progress in any direction is to demonstrate an actual consensus for change, which certainly requires more support than a slight majority.

In order to accomplish above, it is going to be necessary for people on your side to do more than simply say "remove" and for people on the other side to do more than simply say "keep". I am not saying that there should be some automatic "middle option" beloved by everyone. I am simply saying that repeatedly calling for outright removal (or the opposite on the other side) practically speaking accomplishes nothing and takes time and effort away from efforts to develop a real resolution process. What I would suggest might be more helpful is to focus on the principles that you believe must be reflected by whatever the outcome is. Instead of issuing general statements against notplot, describe the problems you feel are caused by this section that must be removed in any ultimate resolution. They will probably still be in disagreement with others, but they still will be more likely to help us find a consensus position than the serial keep/remove debates.

Please understand that this is not intended as criticism. This is obviously an issue that people see has having really broad consequences for WP, so it is natural that tensions get high and that people are going to be uncomfortable with anything but what they see as a complete success. I just would like us all to acknowledge the reality of the situation: to get something accomplished we have to work together; on WP there really is no other way. Locke9k (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rodger Bumpass
You've only found one dinky source. The article needs several non-trivial sources, and I ain't finding any. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy calls for one, not several. Next! Hiding T 15:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements notice board
OK, I finally started an idea I mentioned on the Comics project talk page. :) Feel free to have a go, do whatever you like to make it look better/more functional/whatever, or offer suggestions. BOZ (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

re: NAF
YEA!!!! ... we're finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel! I'll be happy to take a look later today when time permits. Glad to hear it! Cheers. ;) — Ched : ?  12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Automatic entries
I notice that you have several automatic entries on discussion pages regarding quality scales. In many, if not all of these, the word "assessment" is incorrectly spelled "assesment." Can you please fix? It's not a major issue, granted, but it still would look better fixed. Boomshadow (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to an instance? Hiding T 12:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
Just be clear, here's what I meant:

"I have just speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail (DC Comics) (2nd nomination). I want to flag the situation up since the article was nominated one day after a deletion debate had been closed as No consensus regarding the same article."

So far so good.

"The article had been nominated both times by TTN (talk · contribs), "

Fair enough.


 * First qualification regarding motives
 * who has formerly been involved in arbitration cases, namely Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2.

I.e. ->renom may be suspect given user's background.

Then, acknowledgement of perfectly understandable renom:

"TTN makes pertinent points regarding why he relisted in the deletion debate,"


 * Second qualification regarding motives
 * "but I do find myself concerned give the user's past history."

I.e. renom may be suspect given user's background and an invitation for review based on user history not on reasonableness of renomination.

"I offer up both my close of the debate and the swift renomination for review and comment, given my concern and also the possibility that such concern has biased me. Hiding T 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)"

That is what I meant by an imputation. Others may well disagree. Either way, the matter can be safely dropped. Eusebeus (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither qualification that you impute as relating to TTN's motive actually regards TTN's motives, and I was careful to avoid stating that they specifically pertained to TTN's motives. I was instead stating that they related to the chain of events, and I was hoping to inform people wishing to comment as to the history involved, and the reason why there may be "drama", and the cause for my concern.  I hoped this background information would allow people to offer views on how to avoid such "drama" the next time this sequence of events occurs. The next time the article is nominated, for instance, there will be less scope to color the debate in a particular way, given the discussion we have just held at WP:AN. However, I will be much clearer the next time I choose to act in such a manner. I didn't relay the fact that the debate had been closed and re-opened already, something which also concerned me but which I found I could not enunciate clearly enough without leading the debate.  Given that your reading indicates I already did lead the debate, perhaps I should have just backed my judgement, such as it is. Regards, Hiding T 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chromium age
Sorry for not getting back sooner - I was off on a jaunt round the NE.

Anyway the article seems unecessary as it covering the same ground as Modern Age of Comic Books (which needs a lot more work), so I'd suggest just doing a merge (although as it seems mainly OR I'd mainly just switch it to a redirect and if anything is missing and can be sourced then drop it in when the source arises). (Emperor (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-17/Discussion report
Great work on Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-17/Discussion report. Although it looks like the wider audience has chimed in supporting deletion of my Vogue templates, your efforts serve the project well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a great new wrinkle.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for a great job with the discussion report.--ragesoss (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fourthified. Though I really liked that bloggy link last week or two as well. However, I appreciate this snapshot of the state of things. Please keep it up! :) Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian to the core, I like it :) --Kwekubo (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pile on kudos. Excellent work on the Discussion Report. We've been needing something like this for a while. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for helping whittle down the unevaluated comics articles. We're really making some progress now! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for rating so many Judge Dredd-related articles recently. I was wondering if you could help me with two questions? First, you rated Mechanismo at C-class and I would appreciate any advice you can offer about what improvements I could make to get it up to a B. Second, GentlemanGhost rated Chief Judge Fargo as Start-class, but I think it is clearly much better than that. I sthere a particular procedure I have to go through to request a second opinion? If not, would you mind taking a look at it and seeing if you think it is worth re-rating? Thanks very much. Richard75 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:5P
You rock! Thanks for being bold the first time and raising issues with my original revisions; and thanks for being an open-minded collaborator and supporting the current version.

It's funny -- I have to chip away at these pillars one at a time -- just minutes ago, someone restored virtually the original text of the fifth pillar, and now I get to have that conversation. :) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ==Orphaned non-free image (File:Richey on stage.jpg)==

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Deadline
Ideally, publishing happens by around Monday 15:00 UTC, but it's generally my policy to wait for anything that needs more work as long as publishing happens by 23:59 UTC Monday. The nominal deadline of 03:00 UTC is basically so that I can give a closer look to anything that's ready by then.--ragesoss (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Signpost DRAMA report
Thank you good sir so much for writing this report, it must have taken a lot of effort and I found it very valuable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.107.24 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know, I hadn't picked up on that acronym. I'm not sure I like that, seems a bit... I wonder what other... ah, TROLL, somebody has had a fun time thinking those up. Okay, BRION is of a different standard. Hiding T 10:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
I would have awarded the the Signpost Barnstar, but as I am not a signpost editor or contributor I don't feel qualified to do so. I hope that you keep up the great work with the discussion report; with your editing, it has rapidly become an invaluable resource. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Governance reform/Policy Committee version 1
Frankly, if you want to delete it, considering I am effectively the only editor who worked on the page, I would have no objections. Tagging as inactive would be just as acceptable to me, of course. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ridicule
What is your purpose in ridiculing another editor by selecting typos and annotating them with (sic), then publishing them to a wide variety of Wikipedians via Signpost, such as ? b is next to n on the keyboard. An omitted space signifies little. I stipulate that I am not a perfect typist. So be it. Please learn to deal with substance rather than form. It seems mean and malicious. It must greatly bolster your ego that you have never once (?) posted an imperfect edit. Edison (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Embarrassment aboutmy bad typing being posted complete with two "sics" led to ranting. Sorry. Feel free to post or comment on any of my posts. Edison (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Signpost discussion report tip
Hello Hiding, I figured since you seem to have taken over writing the Discussion reports for the Signpost, that you'd appreciate a heads-up about the discussion at Template talk:Navbox to address several usability/accessibility issues Navbox currently has. Cheers! 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Television schedules
HI. Couldn't help but notice you asked 14 people to comment on the television schedules debate at WP:NOT. Just curious as to what motivated you, how you chose the people, what you feel about canvassing? Hiding T 08:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Hiding,
 * I tried to make the notice neutrally-worded, on pages viewable by anyone. There was no intent to be sneaky, no one was contacted for !votes via e-mail, and not all of those I invited to comment have weighed in to keep. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Just noticed the cleanup you did at Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines - thank you. ;) — Ched : ?  10:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that ... sounds like a good idea to me. ;) — Ched : ?  11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Hopefully we won't have to use the guideline too often for years to come. — Ched :  ?  11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with you on that one. For all our flaws here, we are rather like a family. — Ched :  ?  11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Word Association
After reverting, I found the two words. But this IS a game. Your continuing reverting it is beyond annoying. Please, it's a game, just let it go. 65.65.230.52 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that, too. The problem happens when other people play, though.  I went through once and deleted a big chunk because somebody played fifty words and even started a branch.  But if they play a couple, I'd just ignore it and go on.  After other people play on it, it becomes irritating because some people like to see where it's gotten to.  There used to be a big thing over people repeating a word, and somebody would go back and remove 20 or 30 words to get back to where that word was repeated (I remember "the Beatles" was common for that for some reason). It was the same thing, especially when somebody played "John Lennon" instead of "Abbey Road" the second time.65.65.230.52 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin hat issue
'lo guys,

I'm cross posting this to BOZ, Doczilla, Emperor, Hiding, and Jc37 because I'd like some additional admin-level input on something that ThuranX dropped on my talk page.

What he posted is at User talk:J Greb and it deals with information that' come up at Talk:Red Hulk. ThuranX's post provides a direct link to the touch off edit/confession.

Frankly, I find the information more than a little frustrating. But before moving forward I would like some input from other admins that have had to deal with these two. Admins other than the one (Nightscream) currently involved in the edit war on Red Hulk.

Just try and keep this in one place I've set up a subhead under ThuranX's post to mey talk.

Thanks in advance for any input you have to offer.

- J Greb (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC
Sure, that sounds like a great idea. Of course, Request for Comments don't start with Wikipedia; they trace back to the origins of the Internet and the open calls for feedback on common protocols and standards. The fact that we adopted them is a mark of the hacker origins of the community. But it'd be interested to try to trace how they evolved on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to edit it; I actually just finished a book that touches on the pre-WP RfCs and their significance.--ragesoss (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2000 AD
I just noticed a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hiding/Archive_2008 in the 2000 AD titles Category. I'm not sure whats going on. 202.134.253.55 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. We were discussing categories and it's easy to forget to put the ":" before the category name so as to display it as a link. Thanks for pointing it out. Hiding T 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Smallman12q (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Slowly getting back into it
Amazing coincidence: I'm just getting back into Wiki editing today after several months -- and only about a week since your post! Great minds think alike, to coin a cliche. I hope you're well, and I'm very, very glad to see you still here, keeping standards high and being a great, conscientious editor and a calming, reasoning voice to other, less veteran editors. I've just created a page for the comics-inspired play Warp!, and though I have to run out now, I hope to expand on it (and certainly to have everybody else jump in!) later today or tomorrow. With all my regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

LEAD
Last week you mentioned this discussion. Most respondents felt there was no problem and no cause for action. I have opened up a new discussion about length preferences with a set of data clarifying the problem. This is a new discussion. Separately there is a discussion about general guidance on the LEAD. Any questions hit my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is WP:POST final for 9/7. I see no features and admins.   Also is Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-07/Discussion report final?  You did not mention the new debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
I don't really want to do this, but Nightscream appears to have abused his administrator privileges once again. You have always been the voice of reason. Can you counsel him on this? We're trying to resolve an issue, but it doesn't help when someone gets heavyhanded with their blocking rights. Over to you. Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Here's the link:

Asgardian (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: the comment that I was accusing Nightscream, I was in fact merely pointing out what an administrator confirmed. I have replied to his remarks re: my editing here :, which has links to the whole ball of wax. As the links indicate, I was not at fault. That aside, ThuranX appears to have misconscrued a comment made by myself and has made accusations, for which he has been cautioned . I also disproved it here with some detective work. There was no edit warring, although once again the link first posted shows that Nightscream and ThuranX  are even now continuing to bang heads together at Red Hulk.

What is tad disappointing is how quickly other editors were ready to jump on the bandwagon and condemn over what is a misconception. Perhaps if someone asked a question? Asgardian (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my offhand comment, it was merely a reflection of my frustration. I appreciate being recognised as a voice of reason, but do not appreciate people believing that means I will referee every point of contention people encounter. For the record, I am not the best person to discuss any given situation with User:Nightscream as we do not seem to communicate well.  Personally, my opinion is that we take the whole mess to arb-com and accept our medicine.  If people can't face that, then the only recourse is to hold an RFC or two to establish ground rules. The best ground rule everyone could observe would be that none of this really natters.  All participants need to start realising that if they are right, someone else will recognise it and their edits will remain in the article.  I look forwards to all particpants garnering a greater understanding of the Wiki way. Hiding T 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good advice. I don't really want to see anything unpleasant happen to Nightscream (or for that matter ThuranX, who when he's got his head in the game actually makes some surprisingly good plays and keeps some of the fancruft out), but he needs to calm down. If I can perceive the tone in what he's been writing of late, then others can as well. If push comes to shove, I think uninvolved parties who come in cold to make a ruling will strip his administrator privileges and probably impose a temporary block just on conduct issues alone (to judge by the fairly black and white faux pas of late). For now I'll just stay away from the Red Hulk article as there's way too much emotion involved at present. There are plenty of other articles (sigh) that need cleaning up. We'll see if we can ride the storm out. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible story
WP:POST might find it interesting that WP:CHICAGO chooses Category:Top-importance Chicago articles by a consensus vote of its members.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be something for Kiril, that looks like it is more relevant to the WikiProject beat. Hiding T 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen pages
Should the pages not be in the talk space? Technically, Watchmen/Revision is in the mainspace. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay pal. Hiding T 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Psylocke's First appearance
Does the first appearance really need to be mentioned in the biography? It's already mentioned in publication history, which seems more appropriate. It's also mention in the into. Does it need to be mentioned at 3rd time in the biography section? Just trying to trim the fat on a really long article. DigitalVampire82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Request for your opinion
Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

your singer songwriter drv post
I agree very strongly that we need some kind of procedure like the one you proposed. It's a large part of the problems at CfD. If anything you understated the situation rather than exaggerating. There is no real CfD2 procedure and this works neither in theory nor in practice. DGG mentioned the need a while back in another deletion review and explained the situation afterward in a discussion with me on his talk page, but nobody's done anything. Hope you make some formal proposal.John Z (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot redirect search?
Hey, I noticed that you had assessed all of the unassessed Comicsproj stub articles as stubs. Is there any way would could use a bot to troll through the unassessed comics articles and mark all redirect articles as class=redirect, importance=no? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't work out a way to build a list of redirects. AWB will only list 25000, which large as it is, isn't enough. Let me try and knock another few off the total at least. Hiding T 12:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, too bad. Thanks, though. I figured it was worth a shot. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. There must be a way of doing it, but you probably need better tools than I have. :( Hiding T 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
You've been doing a fantastic job with the discussion report, and thanks for getting this week's issue out on time!

Psylocke's First appearance
Does the first appearance really need to be mentioned in the biography? It's already mentioned in publication history, which seems more appropriate. It's also mention in the into. Does it need to be mentioned at 3rd time in the biography section? Just trying to trim the fat on a really long article. DigitalVampire82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Have no objection to removing the first appearance, but I think last time it was removed a reference was removed which supports the text up to that point. I see a fact tag has snuck in too, which is verifiable to the issue cited. Hiding T 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent death of Wikinews
Nice job on this subsection, at Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-14/Discussion report. Your representation of the events seems accurate and NPOV. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hiding T 12:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my poor English, but what does that mean: "recent death of Wikinews"? As I see, the website is still functioning. I guess it is some kind of pun, but after reading the whole article I failed to find the meaning. My best guess would be "recent death in wikinews". By the way, let me second the praise. You indeed have a gift of summarizing, valuable for a wikipedian.  Mukadderat (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

signpost
re: Category:Articles lacking sources: I have no idea what was with my brain to miss the pink notice. Sorry for trouble. - Altenmann >t 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Signpost suggestions
Sorry for troubling you, but is there a dedicated list of signpost authors and standard topics, or anyone can add a new section? Where can I add a suggestion? I have seen a section "interviews". I would like to suggest a section "memoirs", e.g., for people who were withh wikipedia, say, over 5 years. I was suggest5ing this because "history of wikipedia" is underdeveloped topic, mostly describing major happenings. But there is close to none individual histories. Something in between is sections dedicated to separate wikiprojects. Mukadderat (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

# and AWB
I've asked Colonies Chris. If he doesn't know, perhaps someone at the Bot Approvals Group might point in the right direction. I do know that AWB can be run semi-automatically, and you can check for # in titles before saving. Slower than you are hoping for, I suspect.

I run a Mac, so am out of field as far as AWB (very unfair). Tony  (talk)  12:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AWB regexes
AWB has two ways to handle regexes. There's a regex tester (accessible from the Tools menu), and there's the Find and Replace facility. All you have to do for F&R is to enter the regex in the left column and the substitution in the second column, and tick the 'Regex?' box. Apoc2400's suggestion to tighten the regex to avoid sections etc. looks good to me; you could use the regex tester to try it out and confirm it doesn't have any unexpected side effects before running it for real. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a way to do for individual articles:
 * Add the following to your monobook.js


 * Reload the browser cache by pressing Ctrl+F5, go edit the page you want to change (such as my sandbox)
 * At the bottom of the left pane there is "Change # to No."
 * To sweep a whole category, you still need AWB. I can help you write regular expressions, but I don't know AWB well. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This method is documented at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Regex_menu_framework
 * I just saw that MoS also recommends against using "No." Is "number 1" better? Do you want for capital Number and Issue too?
 * Here is the full form with comments from the docs and both number and issue: --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My unclear comment
No, like a bad penny, as they say, I'm back and hopefully productive; certainly, John Romita Sr. needed expansion. Hope you, too, are well. I think I speak for many WPC veterans when I say the Project would be a much lesser place without you.

Let's see ... I guess what I meant back in January was to advocate for citing comic books themselves to verify particular points (which the Project generally does; if I'm remembering right, I think my post referred to a forum in which several of us were trying to codify existing practices?). For example, "The Silver Surfer is Norrin Radd of the planet Zenn-La. [footnote: Silver Surfer #1 (March 1968), p. 10]" or whatever page it was. That's really all. I hope this helps! With regards as always, -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian debate, again
You've been a part of it here, so I thought you might want to be aware of concerns I've expressed there re: Asgardian and the time and effort all of us are expending. In a nutshell: Oy. (Oh, and since you asked on that page about our membership ... I'm 50ish, I used to write for Marvel & Dark Horse for several years, and I've written about comics occasionally for mainstream magazines and newspapers. I hope my mentor isn't too much younger than I am! :-)   --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what makes a great mentor &mdash; not trying to be. All I can say is, when I started here, you were helpful and instructive and gave me a model of how to edit and how to interact with other editors, including how to disagree with respect and to always try to find common ground. Thank goodness for plain text, or blushing might be a problem here! :-)   --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My view, with some concessions made as per your past guidance . Regards. Asgardian (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance has been marked as part of the Manual of Style
I hereby invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (permanent link here, section 22). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Kudos on synthesizing consensus and updating...
...the Project Page. That took a lot of work and consensus-building. I and I'm sure our brethren thank you for taking on all that time and effort. Some tweaks and clarifications need massaging, but that's fairly minor. (I've got one question on its Talk page already.) But as for the vast bulk of the new page -- holy cow, what a job! -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second that - the niggling problems get all the heat and it is a pity that the vast majority of work that moves things forward generates a lot less comments, but rest assured that it is appreciated though ;) (Emperor (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

MoS talk
Hi, this is just a brief note to explain where I'm coming from, since there's inevitable ambiguity on Talk Pages (and not to argue my point of view here).

I basically tend towards the minimalist, pluralist or libertine view of style matters in Wikipedia, feeling that the MoS would be more keenly and easily observed, the more it sticks to clear problems of WP:Accessibility, readability, ambiguity, confusion, obscurity, mistake and unintended offense. So I'm not keen on a Manual(s) of Style that is/are rigid, intrusive, overbroad, or too far-reaching, and in general I think that uniformity for its own sake is an unattainable and not necessarily desirable ideal that's usually outweighed by a host of other considerations that I won't enumerate here. That certainly puts me in a minority at MoS talk pages, although I don't know where the general opinion of editors or prospective editors outside MoS Talk would fall if asked. But I also understand why collaborating editors in particular fields of study might feel the need to converge or regularize their treatment of certain names, titles or topics.

So when I mention the notion that the Manual of Style and major sub-pages like WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) constitute some kind of Absolute or Overriding prescriptive Authority (e.g. in # vs No.) to be enforced by 'bot sweeps, it's almost always from a negative point of view. And I certainly hope I wasn't implying that you were a 'bot. Since my (apparently-erroneous) impression was that—following entirely plausible reasoning from its own particular field—the Comic Book consensus was leaning towards "Vol., #", I was trying to point out (1) that there might be a conflict with the emerging MoS consensus without saying that either should prevail over the other, (2) the reasons for the different MoS consensus (non-Americans' unfamiliarity with that use of "#") and (3) my hopes that there wouldn't be edit conflicts and reversions caused by 'bot editing or wikilawyering.

As for the hierarchy of all the style guides, I just look (as you can see from my discussion at MoS Talk) at the gigantic edifice and wonder what can be done to prevent it metastasizing into an unmanageable Legal Code that collapses of its own weight upon everyone's head after most editors have just plain given up on giving it any heed. The Comic Book style guides weren't doing anything wrong, in my opinion, probably just trying to fit into a place where editors could find them more easily. But the whole Style Guideline structure needs to be examined and rethought, if not by the Whole Community, then at least by a very broad and diverse representation of it, so everyone at the MoS Talk seems to agree with your view (and mine) that any concrete proposals should go through the usual broad channels such as RfC's, the Village Pumps and the Centralized Discussion template.

Yours for the carefree pursuits of childhood,

—— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Admission into the hallowed realms of MoS
Hiding, You were the last person I wanted to offend by raising the matter of a proper system for admitting pages to MoS status. I haven't even looked at the comics one, and I'm sure it's fine, but I do think a formal process is required. Don't you? Tony  (talk)  10:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely—I'd glossed over the comments about any one page. Now I'm thinking about the best strategy to achieve a change in the overall process. Tony   (talk)  11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC
Yes. -M ASEM (t) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That should actually be RFC #3. (See #1 and #2.) Been following some interesting threads recently. It's been some time since I dealt with him directly, but looks like he's up to his usual polite helpfulness. Let me know if you need any help, but I'm not exactly eager to go around in circles with him yet again. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Maybe arbitration, but I can't face that.  It's too depressing. Hiding T 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I'm regretting baling on your request. ;| Hiding T 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? BOZ (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:Hiding/Archive 2008 Hiding T 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't worry about that. GC#2 was far more effective than I would have ever dreamed: we have barely heard from him at all for about 10 months now. Your input would have been nice, but we were just fine with what we had. :) You may want to seek out input from Protonk, who was super helpful on that one. BOZ (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

An addendum to the "interesting threads" bit above is where essentially the same thing broke out in a third place, leading to a Godwin. Interesting how worked up he gets over such a seemingly minor thing, no? A couple months ago he was passionately calling for a ban on a user who created hundreds of (legitimate, if not-notable) stubs using AWB. Wouldn't be hard at all to find people to complain about him, and it's hardly limited to just D&D anymore (I guess that's one of the "benefits" of GC#2 and our RFM with him; the rest of Wikipedia gets to enjoy his pleasant demeanor.) BOZ (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To add - another case of sticking to the guns despite overwhelming consensus the opposite way. --M ASEM (t) 14:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * oops, that's what BOZ has above. But still part of the pattern. --M ASEM  (t) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus, a previous warning for the exact same behavior that I was just discussing with another admin who had just issued a warning. BOZ (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. BOZ (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Secret Wars
Thanks for the help with the links. I am always appreciative when someone comes behind me and does the minor touches. And yes, I know the procedure (heh). As to Dream Focus, I think he means well, but it was a substandard effort. I do try to slot something into every Edit Summary, but these days it seems as though there's not a whole lot of time to do so, as the fancruft efforts seem to appear daily (by the dozen), many of which are vandalism and one-offs by folks who never return. I'm guessing most of these editors are younger and mean well, but just don't understand Wikipedia procedures. Perhaps I'll just say to refer to WikiComics Guidelines in future. That said, if I didn't intervene, more than a few articles would have slipped several notches. Now, if we could only get Tenebrae to be a tad less protective of his old (and outdated) version of Awesome Android...

Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I am holding my breath and trying to be tolerant of less than cooperative editors. DrBat has just been officially warned for incivility, and continues to make blind reverts despite my constant additions to Abomination, which I've almost finished and is looking good. I've also just had Nightscream jump in on a discussion with the previous user, which I think he now regrets as I am just trying to ask the guy to calm down and not give anyone further ammunition. I think I've also found a solution to Awesome Android, and have in the interests of peace kept the weaker text at Rhino, and just pasted the Wiki-correct peripherals around it. Just letting you know I am doing my best to play nice, even if the others are sometimes throwing stones. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging
My only slight concern would be the recentism skew we see from visitor numbers - there are going to be notable comics and characters from long ago that get very little love unless there has been an important announcement. That said we can pretty much figure that out pretty easily but it would be a good guide because I've basically been jotting down names when I've stumbled across them which is a shotgun method.

I don't think we ever go around to discussing P&A but yes there is no problem as long as we keep it breif and out-of-universe (so basically we need to set the example early and keep tweaking things to keep them on track). Minor characters are likely to have a fairly basic set of abilities so that should work in our favour too. (Emperor (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Re: RFC
Sure. I'll write something up when i have a bit of free time tomorrow. I was only heavily involved in it for a few months but i can definitely give some insight from that time. Wizardman 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

publication
There's a lot to add still for this issue -- I wish that you'd doublechecked before publishing :) We'll just finish it up on the double. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can you fix Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Issue to reflect the new N&N headline? Thanx. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I was freaking out a little bit about getting it done when I left the above; don't apologize for publishing, it's great that you did. My schedule is a bit erratic, especially on Mondays, so there's no way that you could have known... and the Brion story just broke midday on Monday, so there's nothing I could do about it until Monday night, well past the deadline. Sorry to gripe on your talk page, and please don't feel bad! We do definitely need backup publishing help; I don't know how much time Ragesoss will have in the future (he has a new baby!) I happened to catch him last night & he fixed the headline. A checklist is not a bad idea... at least so we could say "it's 90%, let's go for it!" best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't think anyone else was going to publish, so you rescued us!! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * aha, where are you located? I'm on the west coast of the US, so PST (UTC-8:00) and Ragesoss is on the east coast (EST, UTC-5:00). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure dude, I'll do a bit of investigating as to what would be appropriate. Perhaps a more organised version of Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Publishing with checkmarks, or another column on Regular responsibilities... we'll see. Let me know if you have any thoughts on how you'd like to see this implemented. Glad you like the new Newsroom structure, it should make it a lot simpler for new Signpost writers to comprehend how stuff happens. Cool! --P retzels Talk! 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I understand where you're coming from. At the moment, I'm thinking of setting up a table, with a list of the articles, some other info, but most importantly a Status column - set to either green (finished, ready to publish), amber (in progress), or red (not started). This would replace the Newsroom section "For publication on October 5". Do you think this would be suitable? P retzels Talk! 16:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think having a table -- or probably just a single-column list, to be honest -- to replace the "For publication on Oct 5" section would be good. That new section looks good, but what we actually need is a list where we can leave notes about status, etc. etc. This week showed that there's not really a good way of deciding when things are 'finished', so a way of noting status would be great.  -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think Phoebe has it, we really need a way of leaving notes about status. Red, green and amber can work, but words would be useful too, so we can know when stuff is going to be finished.  Maybe we could have a time field, so I could say, look, if I haven't finished the DRAMA report by midnight Monday and aren't actively compiling it, publish as is.  Sort of thing. Hiding T 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. May take a few days to get right, but you'll hear from me. Thanks guys! --P retzels Talk! 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Set up a checklist in the newsroom, with colours and words! Possible statuses are listed in the code, these can be changed if need be. What do you think? P retzels Talk! 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really glad it's working for you :) let me know if you need anything P retzels Talk! 12:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kingbotk assessing
I saw you filed the AWB bug and had discussions regarding talk pages dropping off AWB queue. Did you hear anything about possible progress? Double Blue (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they have their hands full with a number of other bugs. When I spoke to them the priority was a bug that was causing AWB to save the wrong page.  I think the Kingbotk bug is lower priority than that. Can't really offer anything more than that to be honest. Hiding T 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's more or less all I was wondering. Obviously I agree with having things in priority queue and it's a volunteer solution so I didn't want to pester so I asked you in case you already had some inside insight or a workaround. Cheers! Double Blue  (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Signpost for delivery
The signpost is ready for delivery. I think you have the ability to do that, right? Let me know if you can't. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ooh, canvassing?
I hadn't thought that it might be an issue (the image RfC), and now I feel embarrassed; please remove the thread thus far if you think people might frown on it. It's only six days old; I've just asked the co-organiser (MIckaul) how long it should go on for. Tony  (talk)  12:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC) PS I guess I was still functioning in talk-page mode (less obvious); my worry is that this might start a trend of add-on notices at the bottom, which would be regrettable. Tony  (talk)  12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hiding. Relieved. I presume it's still possible to post overleaf on the discussion page as an alternative to the underneath bit. In future, I would make such a post overleaf. Tony   (talk)  13:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Signpost contribution
First off, kudos on all your work at the Signpost, it really enriches the Wikipedia experience for myself and countless other editors I'm sure. I'm writing to let you know that I dropped a Discussion tip at the Tip Line, but then just wrote a Briefly point about it. I've wanted to help the Signpost for some time now, and this was my opportunity. I leave it up to your editorial judgement whether it should even stay, no hard feelings. - Draeco (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to expand it if you like, I'll treat it as an exercise in diplomacy for me to remain neutral. - Draeco (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Write the next issue
The issue was that the next issue's contents page didn't exist! I've created it and all links are now appearing as they should. --P retzels Talk! 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What about She-Ra?
You forgot to merge She-Ra and Princess Adora that was part of the discussion regarding He-man and Prince Adam or does a seperate discussion have to happen regarding She-Ra have to happen before a final decision can happen. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban
As I feel this was an unfair and hasty ban (one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed), I have posted an appeal for review here: Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say I was disappointed in your response to this matter, as it overlooked certain factors. The claim that I had no interest in discussing the issue is false, as I did communicate with DrBat via his Talk Page on several occasions. While I also still respect you, I really think you needed to be on hand and available for discussion the day after taking this kind of unlateral action. Taking responsibility for one's actions, so to speak. Regards Asgardian (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not being on hand, but real life intervened. I am always responsible for my actions, and left adequate measures in place to ensure a review could be undertaken by any admin, posting to the admin's noticeboard. You haven't as yet demonstrated during this chain of events any willingness to cease from editing the relevant pages while you discuss the issue, which is the substantive point. Hiding T 23:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On the first point, no problem, although I think the others were holding off as you took the action. That said, no problem. As to discussion, the other party wasn't interested. DrBat didn't show any willingness to cease reverting, and his conduct was far from exemplary (eg. the "troll" comment). I also did try his Talk page. At any rate common sense has prevailed at Abominaton as others have supported my version. I believe this also would have been the case at Rhino had I been allowed to finish it, as he had no case once the last section was finished. I really can't say anymore, only that if you're going to enforce this kind of thing, you've now got to take it to other articles the usual band aren't involved in where things get truly nasty, and there are more than a few.

Now, I have a finished version of the last section I'm willing to post at some point, and DrBat can comment or not, although if he does I'm going to require more than a petulant "I don't like it" and a revert.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Even when I tried compromising, keeping your version but removing the unimportant issues (like Abomination fighting X-Man), you reverted my edits.
 * And now you're doing the same thing to Hercules; why do you think we need to write about every single appearance, regardless of how important it is? --DrBat (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not on Hiding's page. Not appropriate. I'll respond on your Talk page. Asgardian (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-19/Discussion report
I did a bit of editing, hope you don't mind. Icewedge (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Strike it out
I recomend you strike out your last comment. In fact, delete the entire section, as both our contributions reflect badly upon us. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a rhetorical statement meant to outline the futility of the argument. Hiding T 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of such rhetoric, and even if it is, its in extremely bad taste. Delete it now, if you please. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in a vast number of reliable sources, see here. Hope that helps. Hiding T 20:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Relative to the context of our discussion, it is gratuitious and out of place; no one is on trial (rhetorical or otherwise) in these discussions. If I did not make it clear before, I am offended and hurt by this remark.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I sympathise with the fact that you say you feel offended and hurt, I hope I have explained fully that such was not my intent? If not, please accept my full assurance that it was not my intent, and my intent was instead to try to get to the bottom of what award the shark had won, and to demonstrate the loaded question you presented me with. I'm not sure why you are suggesting anyone is on trial; the simple facts of the matter are that you presented a loaded question, which I demonstrated by responding with another one. Perhaps it would be better if in the future discussions were kept germane and questions were answered directly rather than with another question? Still, all is okay because we all assume the other party is acting in good faith. Hiding T 10:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You've inspired me! (sort of)
Hi old friend,

Sadly, I can't end my wiki-retirement; but, your note did inspire me to clean up my user pages so that they no longer appeared as if a hurricane had hit them! :) I'm still reading Wikipedia daily, so drop by anytime!  Though I'm not of much wiki-use now, I still make a good paperweight, and I'm always a ready organ donor.  I'm at your service for either purpose!  Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from the WP:SIGNPOST Suggestion page
I see the deadline is 03:00 UTC on Monday. For the Discussion Report, what would be a good working deadline for me to get you guys a list of the policy pages that are seeing the most action this month? Or should I just add that to the working page of the Discussion Report myself? Since August, I've been doing a monthly update in roughly the 4th week of the month and then again on the 1st, and I'd like to get notice out about which pages are seeing the most "action" and what the changes are in a Discussion Report before the end of each month. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice on nominating good articles. Richard75 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see
Just wanted to drop by and say hi.

I haven't been around for several months, and I'm going to slooowly work through finding out what I missed.

Also, I know I'm cheating, but I would guess that most who I would say hi to have your talk page watchlisted : )

Anyway, just wanted to let you know I'm sorta back. (So better hide the breakables : ) - jc37 14:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

HEY!
Hey! I emailed you a while back, don't know if you ever got it or just "vanted to be alone". Gosh damn I have no clue what has happened since you've been gone. I just covered something about CFD for the signpost, though, so that might help. As to comics, we've finally got all articles we know about assessed which is a biggie. We're now looking at merging individual stubs into lists, since we have about 3000 of them, and not all of them are essential as standalone articles, based on, um, I found a tool somewhere, hang on, here. Oh, User:DrBat has been blocked indef for sock puppeting, although that user feels unfairly treated because Asgardian never was, see User talk:Carcharoth. And don't get me started on Asgardian. We're drafting an RFC, Boz has it somewhere. Damn, I don't know what else to say. I could probably add loads about the power structure on the wiki, which seems to have shifted somewhat, but that's boring. There's a whole load of people taking all teh chairs off tables on various policy pages, so have a rummage through any you used to like or created. Oh, and WP:FICT is as dull as dishwater, as ever. But yeah, any questions feel free to shout. Nice to see you. :) Hiding T 14:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously you can copy this back to my talk page for continuing. :) Hiding T 14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You sir, nearly owed me one keyboard. lol.


 * I was in the process of doing just that, and opened my talk page for a link to this one. And saw the above comment and just laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.


 * I'll have to check my email to see if it's there somewhere. I have several long stories, which probably really aren't important at this point, but I was less-than-online for quite awhile.


 * And thanks for the update.


 * I'll take a look around, and bbiab : ) - jc37 14:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * HAH! You've been missed. Talk in a while. Hiding T 14:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation
Any thoughts on resurrecting or merging this, then. I know you're easing yourself in slowly, of course. :) Hiding T 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had the sole say in it, I'd be slightly torn.
 * On one hand, I think that the WikiProject should probably become WikiProject Comics and Animation. This due to the long history that both have had together, and because of the internet (among other things, including greeting cards, of all things), technology is such that we're already starting to see hybrid comics, and other interesting pieces of art that attempt to defy classification.
 * On the other hand, calling it WikiProject Comics has a straight-forward simplicity to it.
 * But I don't have the sole say, soooo.
 * What do you think? : ) - jc37 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the benefits of a merger, especially more so as I go through and tag stuff with comicsproj, the overlap with animation is quite large. The number of comics series which have been adapted for animated television is rather large. But like you say, WikiProject Comics has a straight-forward simplicity to it. If we were to do it, I think the way to go would be to set the project up as WikiProject Comics and Animation, and have animation as a work-group under that umbrella. Hiding T 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.
 * Would it be worth having a 3-D computer animation (e.g. pixar) workgroup separate from 2-D animation? Or would this just be a case of content overlap between presentation types, and possibly lend more confusion than clarity? - jc37 22:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the animation project already has a pixar work group, and I think the film project does too, so it probably makes sense to do something like that, yes. I don;t think there would be too much confusion, we seem to get by having Marvel, DC and US work groups, although the relative inactivity of our work groups may have something to do with that? ;) Hiding T 22:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, nod. They're more holding pens, and sub-discussion boards. And I think it actually works decently, if a bit decentralised.
 * Though I vaguely remember discussing a reOrg of them with you in the past... - jc37 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We did? Hmmm.  Not sure how to do it differently. Eventually I kind of feel we should split the world one up into continents at the least.  Beyond that... I could see splitting Batman and Superman out from DC, which would confuse WikiProject Superman. Same for X-Men from Marvel. Maybe 2000AD from British. I'd love a way of some sort of template magic creating comic strip creators or Marvel creators just by having Marvel and creator work groups, but that's impossible, I think. Hmmm. Hiding T 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Geography. I think it was part of the categorisation discussion.
 * And I think that WikiProject Superman will have a harder time with suggesting that it shouldn't be a workgroup after the merge. - jc37 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Geography? I doubt WikiProject Superman would agree to a merge, which is why I like the idea of a work group. I'm contrary like that. ;) Hiding T 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (de-dent) - I'll have to find it. I think it was on x7 or whichever subpage of yours it was. But I also seem to think it was on your talk page as well.
 * You know you're just nudging me deeper and deeper into the project... It's no fair that you're so good at that ...lol - jc37 22:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * X7 is still there, or the history is. We not long finished that off and pushed it out into the world as the style guidance of WP:COMICS. It's on my user page under sand-boxes in one of the show\hide things. Hiding T 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A start
Well I've made an initial foray, see diff. Hiding T 12:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good start. I won't be holding my breath, but let's see if anyone comments over the next few days. - jc37 12:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Header
Hi Hiding, may I ask what Andrea Santoro has to do with Comics? (as you added a related template) --Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot errors
How does Comics-awb decide what to tag? File:Alyxvanceface.jpg is not a comic book image. It's not even in a comics-related category. --Geniac (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the bot tagging comic book pictures as NA importance? It says in the definition of NA pictures is this is for spacers and lines, cosmetic things. Seems like it could be low or bottom, but NA Importance on a character picture would be impossible? Mathewignash (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also wondering the same thing as it keeps inappropriately tagging manga/anime images as well, which are not under comics at all. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also it's tagging a lot of images that are NOT manga/anime-related but video game-related. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiding
And hi from me as well! Happy halloween! >Rad i a n t <  14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thagomizer
In its current condition? Well, it's awfully small so I'd say no for now, but it may have potential. It was intially a joke, but if it was taken up sincerely by the scientific community then that makes it more or less legitimate. Maybe ask around at WikiProject Dinosaurs to see what they have done with similar articles? BOZ (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Size, no, comprehensiveness yes. That's probably the main thing holding it back, because the sourcing looks solid. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is truly a B-class. The main article, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, is much better, and I think the timeline probably needs a trim but I have not looked at it thoroughly. BOZ (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know that list only goes to 500, and we've got thousands and thousands. :)  Unless there's an extension page somewhere? BOZ (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorising fiction
Categorising fiction. Go copy edit. Hiding T 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, added some. Though I think it probably still needs more finesse/clean-up. - jc37 12:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It sure does. Pass it on to other people, it'll get there if it gains momentum. Hiding T 13:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User pages in mainspace categories
If I built a list of user pages in Category:Comics and all sub-cats, is that something you'd be interested in? Hiding T 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User pages? I don't understand. - jc37 12:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User pages like this one we're on now, or User:Hiding. Which are in sub-cats of Category:Comics. Hiding T 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2000 AD categories
Reversions Well, I cannot revert all of these changes now, as it is 4:30 in the morning where I am and I was getting ready to go to bed soon. If you want me to revert them this evening, I can do that. If you are removing these speedy changes, I am confused as to why you did not list them below "Nominations with objections or that don't meet speedy criteria will be dropped from this list if not taken to a full CfD." or why you left a handful of the newest ones and deleted some in the middle. If you need to respond to me, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again As you can see from my contribs, I made a small dent in my category changes, but I simply cannot complete this now. As I said before, I would be willing to do this myself if I had more hours of consciousness at my disposal. I'll do a handful more, but I will have to retire soon. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticism? What are you talking about? I immediately complied with your request and offered to continue at a later time if you don't have the time to do it yourself. I'm simply letting you know that I cannot complete this presently and am willing to do what you want at a later time. I cannot understand why you're being so aggressive about this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple mistake I am aware of the speedy CfD process and have even moved a category from it due to objections. In this case, I suppose I misread the exchange between the two editors; I figured this was a case that had resolved itself due to discussion (e.g. this), but I was clearly mistaken. This is a matter of oversight rather than disregard for process and I consequently have no problem assisting you in reverting my changes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff What I am saying is that in this example is that I recognized that a category was subject to some disagreement, and so I moved it to the section for such discussion since I understand and am responsive to this process. If I violate it, it is not because I refuse to abide by it or because I do not understand it, but because I made an oversight. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Desired outcome
That may be a reasonable goal. Keep in mind that the intention of an RFC is to find something that the subject will willingly agree to, after having received said community input; if the subject refuses to make an arrangement or breaks it later, obviously that is bad on them. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

CFDS nom removals
Wha ... did you actually do all of these yourself? I apologise; I was being 99% flippant in my remarks that I made to you. I was going to remove the ones I had added, and I'm sorry you've spent the time to do it. I made my comments right before going off-line for the night, but was going to remove them first thing today. Due to our time differences, it appears that you got screwed, and I'm sorry for that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Adventure
An article which you edited, is now up for deletion. You are welcome to comment there. Ikip (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson
Want to help me work on this one? :) It's likely to pass GA after I work on the lead, and if there's anything you can add to the article in general that would be helpful. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Did you happen to catch that mess at the bottom of my talk page? ;) BOZ (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal
Hi Hiding,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Extra article
No problem. None of the delivery stuff had started, so adding it in was fine. Thanks for writing that up! I was excited about getting some coverage of the experiment, but was just going to wait until next week before your article appeared. :) --ragesoss (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Author credits at the Signpost
Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me how the signpost works out who to credit for their stories. I've been a reader for a while, but so far have only made one submission at the suggestion page. Roughly how much of Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment would I have had to submit to merit including as one of the authors?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add a byline. The story was a last minute rush job completed after publication so not all the i's and t's have been crossed. I apologise for any hurt feelings.  Hiding T 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it myself. I have no idea how bylines are apportioned, but if you look back at previous discussion reports, I tend to try and give everyone a byline, but this time round it got caught in the rush. Hiding T 12:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I may have some more stories to follow. Do you think London's 30th meetup would be worth covering?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not. Hiding T 13:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Come on. Despite any differences we may have, I've never been sarcastic about your edits or taken a shot across your bow: You should also know our mutual colleague BOZ has made a good case.

Regards 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been sarcastic or taken a shot across your bow anywhere. I have edited an article in line with guidance, which looks for sparkling prose, or used to last time I checked. Hiding T 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine
OK, thanks for getting back to me. I took care of it. Hope things get less crazy for you. See you around Wikipedia. Homoaffectional (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Williamson
Okey-doke; I'll give it a try. Not quite sure how to phrase it in a way that a bot will understand it, though &mdash; it's an automated process, so the bot must be responding to something in particular. Still &mdash; nothing ventured, nothing gained! -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability RfC
Hi Hiding, please see my recent restoration of the consensus-supported version of WP:N. Regarding the recent discussion at WT:N, I agree with Gavin that some sort of RfC is needed in order to establish a consensus regarding the information discussed. Would you be interested in setting it up? If so, how would you like it to be framed? Also crossposted at FT2's, Masem's and Gavin's talk pages.  Them From  Space  18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion report
I created the page here modeled off the previous one. I wanted to have a page to link to so I can let people know in the current policy discussion (this week is WT:POLICY) where the discussion will be moving, but if you'd like for me to wait until you create the page in the future, please let me know. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move the Policy report wherever you think it works best on that page, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sister projects
Hey Hiding, thanks for publishing, can you add Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-16/Sister_projects to the /Issue listing plz? <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just caught that. Oops.  I always manage to mangle something. :( Hiding T 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was stunningly quick. Thankyou for getting on with the publishing! You saved the Signpost! <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 14:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think we all save the Signpost! Hiding T 14:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject
No should this have been. It might could be changed to an group article though.


 * Sounds cool. I would love to see an demonstration on that. If that works better I would be all for it. And another thing if you do it just make sure you let the participants know.


 * Good job everything is looking great so far exept for the tagging and assession statistic box because there is no article for it yet. You are also free to join it for well and if you do you then can invite other people. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all of your help. I would also like to have an invitation box for the site some time. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of what you really call it so here's a link of my talk page a while back of me getting an invitation to an project. That's what I meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jhenderson777&diff=323327428&oldid=323323879 Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Please reconsider I would like to be allowed to add categories to pages again. I have added thousands of categories to pages with literally 99% of them being unobjectionable. I've taken this time to do a little reading on categories and I have no intention on making any disruptive edits (e.g. I have added thousands of subcategories to the pages from Category:Discographies and I would like to continue maintaining these pages; as you can see on my talk, I got only positive feedback on these dozens of categories that I created and applied.) At your earliest convenience, please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy report
... is up at Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-23/Discussion report; sorry it's late (I try to stick to the 03:00 deadline). If you'd rather I create these on a different page, please let me know. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind how you do it mate. The deadline makes a nice whooshing noise as it sails by, doesn;t it? :) Hiding T 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. (I'm bilingual.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very badly bi-lingual. Technically, I think I'm awfully bad tri-lingually and catastrophically bad quad-lingually. Pas de problem, danke schon and dosvedanaya tovarisch, or something like. ;) Hiding T 19:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After saying I'm bilingual, I proved myself wrong by using "got" in a non-British way, sorry. I'm fine with your edits, I should have matched my style to the Signpost, and I did a minor copyedit myself.  The policy report this time is intentionally milquetoasty; the next two I do (most will be interviews instead of my own descriptions) will be a little more interpretive, and we'll see how that goes. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy criterion 6
Your removal of this criterion (second time) has been reverted by another editor before I had the chance to do it. All of Cfd is completely in favor of this criterion, and a few opinions on the Village Pump are not considered relevant. See e.g. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18. I do not mean to start a discussion with you about this, because if you want to discuss this the right place would be on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, I just wanted to inform you why you are being reverted. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have me at a disadvantage. If the discussion to re-instate it doesn't need to happen at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, I don't see how you feel you can dictate to me where I discuss things.  Perhaps the next time you post to someone's talk page you can find a less confrontational way of doing it.  Cheers pal, Hiding T 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That link was just an example, but you can see the opinions of the Cfd editors on the talkpage as well. I was not aware my style was confrontational, still am not, but appologise anyways. I had no such intention. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it and started a discussion at the talk page. Best to comment there, explaining why you feel you label the opinions of fellow editors as irrelevant. Hiding T 22:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Best to revert you back, since consensus is not like the edit you are trying to enforce. And I personally have already explained on the talkpage why I consider those specific (!) opininons irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind anyone restoring it after a widely advertised discussion at the village pump or some other central area where everyone has the chance to participate. I don't even mind what your opinion is on how relevant other people's opinions are, as long as you agree that your opinion is no basis to create Wikipedia policy.  Hiding T 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

EdwardsBot
I don't know about you, but I'm positively giddy to have a delivery system that doesn't require me to do anything (and that works!). :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly loving it. Hiding T 12:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man Wikiproject
From my interactions with you, you seem to be a good editor with a strong interest in comic books. I thought you'd be interested in joining the WikiProject Spider-Man and helping to improve all of the related articles. -- Spidey 104 contribs 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing it to a workgroup under the Comics Wikiproject (which I was already in) makes sense. -- Spidey 104 contribs 17:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why can't we use the Amazing Fantasy image in the userbox? It's an image that is allowed and used in articles? -- Spidey 104 contribs 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, thank you for answering my question. I apologize that I didn't know about that before and accidentally violated that policy. -- Spidey 104 contribs 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom RfC
Hiding, there's a little confusion about whether the time of closure was to be the start or the end of 24 November UTC. It doesn't seem to matter, people agree at the election talk page. Tony  (talk)  11:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've closed the RFC, per my notice below. Didn't want to just drop the results into the article, but you might wish to do so. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is now Closed
I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:


 * The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
 * Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
 * Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
 * Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

election story
Thanks for doing the election story -- I didn't realize Manning had left. Cheers, phoebe / (talk to me) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Koavf
I would question the value of lifting any sanctions now or in the future. Please take a good look at comments from other editors on this user's talk page (including the archives), as well as his block log. There seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here - I really don't see him as an intentionally disruptive user, but left to his own devices, the results can be very counterproductive.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent deletions
As I've noticed you being active on the deletion sorting front (well there have been quite a few recently and every time I go to see if anything needs adding you have already got there ;) ), I thought I should flag this (although you might have seen it already). A lot of those articles are poor (especially when you get a crossover with webcomics, which is always an area that suffers from notability issues) but the rate they are being nominated seems to be more than those who might be in a good position to suggest sources can cope with. Not sure if it changes anything but it might explain it. (Emperor (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Might it be worth asking them if they could slow down a bit? They haven't been very... receptive to such suggestions but one can only try. I'll drop them a note if you think it could help improve things.


 * Also thanks for that new articles bot, very useful - is it possible to bring it into the fancy pants header on the projects talk page? (Emperor (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC))


 * OK I've dropped a note in. (Emperor (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Intersting question
Why is your talkpage in Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed? And why is it "Non-talk pages"? Debresser (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He hasn't been active for over half a year. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just in case

 * Juggernaut/Talk:Juggernaut

Just in case I'm not around when the page protection expires/is removed, sharing my thoughts on this.

If th edit warring continues, I personally think blocks would be in order at that stage. They possibly were in order at this stage, but as you know, I'm on optimist, and think that discussion can potentialy bring about consensus. And protection can help nudge towards that consensus. But I don't like the idea of protecting the page for much longer than a couple weeks/month, unless we HAVE to.

I just thought I'd leave a note here, since your one of (if not "the") comics project admin(s). And because most of the others have your talk page watched. - jc37 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
GrooveDog FOREVER 21:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanna be a good Wiki-neighbor
Many cordial salutations, Hiding. I hope that you have had a wonderful Thanksgiving and are enjoying your evening. I noticed that a tag has been added to [Gokinjo_Monogatari_Episode_Exhibition] declaring that the article has multiple issues. There is also a remark that there is a question of whether the article meets Wikipedia quality standards and probably needs revision to that effect. I would like for you to please elaborate on the matter and discuss on my talk page why you feel as you do so that this can be promptly resolved.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Boys' Ranch GA
Just thought I'd flag this as you are one of my go-to-guys on Kirby ;) Happy shooting. (Emperor (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Double check
Fancy looking over this - Marveljew and Golem666 have very similar patterns of article starting - the former stopped, then a month later the latter started. Its not that the edits are disruptive but most of them are minor characters with no notability and there is no pint in churning them out if they are going to get deleted. (Emperor (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Signpost election report
Hi, about to go to bed and won't wake till about midnight UTC. They've asked me to write the election report; I guess I could throw one together now, but more comfortable would be to do it in about 17 hours' time. What do you think? I note with relief that a lot of sections haven't even been started yet. Tony  (talk)  15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiding, I'd much rather not, since RL workload is very heavy. I can do it, though, by about nine hours' time. Please let me know if you're doing it. Tony   (talk)  01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiding, thank you for writing it (much better than I could have done). I'm afraid this is one of six deadline days in my work year, and I should have said I couldn't write the page in the first place). I've just returned home after a five-hour meeting and I have hours of work to do before bed. It's 1:30 am. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tony   (talk)  14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiding, I could do next week's if you like—it would be a good learning experience for me. Fifteen hours from now and I'm free of work stress for an extended period. It will be bliss. Tony   (talk)  14:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your post at ANI about two users being socks


Hello Hiding. Though indef blocks of both Dsmith1usa and Lomcevak might well be the best result, Lomcevak is not a new account. It seems possible that they could be students at the same university, maybe even the same student. Some background that might help is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fetler/Archive. User:Sam Blacketer's name appears on one of their talk pages, and he might know something about this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I closed Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds; your participation would be welcome. I accidentally missed alerting you before. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ACE2009 report in the Signpost
Will do the draft; would appreciate your scrutiny when it's done (Monday I hope), especially for POV, since I'm up to my ears in some of the politics surrounding the election. Tony  (talk)  13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

block review
My feeling is that if you are unsure of the block, you should discuss it first. Otherwise, it's a case of "shoot first, ask questions later". The exception would be if Wikipedia is currently under a coordinated massive attack that needs to be stopped immediately. Whether your block is questionable or not, I haven't looked at it so I am not opposed to the block. My interest in the matter is only because I read an article in the front page of the Wall Street Journal Europe about Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see! You routinely ask for review. Very honourable thing to do, more so than most people who block. I mistakenly thought that you blocked first and was having second thoughts. In such case, it may be better to discuss a proposed block first. Your honourable way of doing things, you deserve a barnstar. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Draft election report for The Signpost
I'm pretty happy with it. User:Tony1/Sandbox Tony   (talk)  16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerard/Godwin controversy
I made a few edits to your story in the Discussion Report as requested, but I worry I may have made it more controversial! You probably want to make sure you are happy with my changes before publication. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Nicely done on your part too, as always. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you get a moment, I've requested a few changes to a protected Signpost template here. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. Could you change the date line to

Wikipedia Signpost


 * It needs the autoformatting code to appear as something nicer than 2009-11-30. I've never really thought about being an admin, the majority of my contribs are articlespace and Signpostspace, so I don't know if I would have enough use for it. Also, I know nothing about RfA! Thanks :) <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, it is now showing up as 30 November 2009 for me, as it did previously (the link to the date page autoformats too - but when we change that to point at signpost home we have to use formatdate). You may not have a setting in Preferences for date/time? I will take a look at RfA, thanks for the tip. You are welcome to revert me, I was just acting promptly in response to the email. I couldn't see the link on the Arb noticeboard? However, I did add a link to Gerard's blog homepage to the article, which I guess may avoid WP:BLP whilst providing the information we intended. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want to do something with this? Also, something really interesting, a whole load of revisions on Gerard's talk page have been oversighted. What do you make of that? <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm aware it's contentious. No problem. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, speak soon. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping
You've got mail. Vassyana (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See . The same apologies are extended to you. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up/FYI
Talk:Robin (Earth-Two)

- J Greb (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Query
Hi,

According to this, Bill Randall reviewed Azumanga Daioh in the The Comic Journal #292. Can you find this review and see if it's worth mention in Azumanga Daioh section. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

re Spidey WG
Just a thought, but do we want the material that is going to be tagged under this work group to still be tagged under the Marvel WG?

- J Greb (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Election report
Hiding, is this a good idea? User_talk:Ragesoss Tony   (talk)  08:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U
Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

Because you stated your intent to certify the Asgardian RFC/U, I am letting you know that it has begun. If you still wish to certify, you may do so now.

Also, you made statements on the RFC draft talk page pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. I have included a link to the draft talk page, so that interested parties may view the statements gathered there, if you do not wish to repost them.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I proposed a merge a while back but only two people (besides me) have posted. Having a discussion of 2 against 1 doesn't seem like enough people to establish consensus. If you could please post your opinion here I would appreciate it. I want enough opinions so that I can either merge the articles or end the discussion so that the merge tags are no longer at the top of the articles. Thank you. -- Spidey 104 contribs 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)