User talk:Lee Bailey/Archives/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DVD+ R/W 03:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wii
Hello there! I think it is better to continue an exchange of opinions through User Talk pages than in the article, since that is against the guidelines. Three comments about this: Imagine a gamer going to an art museum. That is how a non gamer feels when they go to a game store. Unless the clerk laughs whenever someone requests a Wii or there are Microsoft or Sony posters explaining that for some Wii may mean something awful, it is likely non gamers will never learn about the matter. Do you think a gamer whose parents _want_ to buy a console will tell them "No! Wii means xxxx, please buy Xbox 360 instead!". I don't think so. -- ReyBrujo 17:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) In case you haven't already noticed, hardcore players have already left Nintendo after they stated they were not going for HDTV nor processing power.
 * 2) As for the timming, what better than just a week before E3? Gamers will have time to discuss all they want, but only for a week. Then, games will talk, and we already know that is Nintendo's best language.
 * 3) Non gamers don't care about what gamers think. Non gamers don't check Gamespot boards, don't read game articles or reviews, don't talk in 133t, don't know what is "cool". They just read common magazines, watch TV, listen to radio, and ask clerks about options. They read Time magazine and read about 5 New Things That Will Blow Your Mind.  They watch Discovery Channel and see the infomercial about Nintendo games.  They don't tell their co-workers "If boss comes, tell him I went to wee", nor understand when youngsters use slang for everything. They don't know about the difference between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.


 * Interesting point of view indeed, it is good to talk with people who can back their thoughts up with such excellent prose. First of all, I must state that I do not like the name "Wii". While Revolution was "cool", it would be difficult to trademark as a single word (which apparently is what they were looking for); they would be forced to add at least the "Nintendo" word in order to do it, making the full console name "Nintendo Revolution", which is hard to read and write in japanese (their target market), and would add complexity to their offering, as Microsoft's console is known simply as "Xbox 360" and Sony's, "PlayStation 3".
 * So, apparently they were looking for a single word that could be easy to write, to pronounce and to remember. At the same time, it needed to be a "trademarkable" word. This is where I comprehend them: they needed to invent a new word.
 * I will direct you to the examples given in this Slashdot comment. Two cars, both with pretty uncommon names, which were launched anyways. Back on topic, The name was surely thought in Japan, but I don't think it was accepted just because Nintendo's president spoke it. They must have done some serious analysis, but based on their new target: females, adults and non gamers. When one considers that the Metroid Prime team (which is american) was the one suggested the idea for the analog joystick which created the "nunchuck" configuration, one should agree that Nintendo Japan hears ideas from other local HQs. Thus, I believe the name was agreed beteween all the major Nintendo heads, and passed on the smaller ones for opinion. It is not as if in Japan the name was chosen and then NOA had to create a slogan.
 * I agree in the fact that having an explanation for the name kind of shows how "weak" it is. My belief is that the explanation was not done for the users-to-be, but for the press, to prevent spreading the "fire" to the media as well.
 * If Nintendo could have trademarked a whistle, that would be the name of the console, don't doubt it ;-)
 * Some analysts believe the name is unfortunate, others that it is brilliant. Not even in the marketing area agree if the move will benefit or damage their strategy. We will probably see a year after launch,
 * As I said, I don't like it, it lacks strength (coming from a spanish speaker country, the letter i is the weakest in terms of pronounciation and, after the u, the less used), but it doesn't have any strange connotations as it has in english speaking countries. If fact, "wii" means nothing, it is not even an onomatopoeia (at least, that I know of). The first thing it brings to you is "Oui" in french, because of the Pink Panther and the Inspector show.
 * I believe that, in the equation, they dismissed the Nintendo fans support, supposing they would accept any name as long as the console was fun. They dismissed the hardcore gamers because they were already lost to Xbox and PlayStation. And they did their bets on the casual gamers and the traditional gaming market that was neither hardcore nor fanboy.
 * I am surely not affected with the name as an english speaker, for sure. Had the name been a "wee" variation in the spanish language, it would have brought about the same retaliation, and I would have done a couple of jokes around. But in the end, the jokes would fade to just the most critical sectors. In fact, they had even put limit to the heaviest jokes: 10 days until next E3. The combination of a strange and controversial name and an innovative game control will surely gain Nintendo several headlines that otherwise would have been impossible, just as the new controller did.
 * Finally, I am not dismissing the name effects as irrelevant. I am just expressing my opinions that the name went through a serious (albeit probably not wide enough) reasearch (probably to prevent leakings), and that it was not chosen only thinking in the japanese market (which, however, is their main target). I loved "Nintendo GO", and somewhat less "Nintendo ON". Even "Nintendo Rev" or "Nintendo RS" would have been better. But I do understand their reasons behind the idea as I do understand the risks and rewards they are taking.
 * Thanks for the congratulations as well. -- ReyBrujo 04:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not
There are thousands of welcomes all over the place on Wikipedia. We also have a number of groups dedicated to community building. Take a look at my user page to learn about a few of them. Thanks for your response. Oh...you might want to try using the "+" when you are adding comments on user talk pages. This puts them automatically on the bottom in chronological order and helps in the creation of a header to make it easier to follow comments and questions. Best, Kukin i 06:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming
Thanks for your post on my talk page about the posssible move of the Stephen Colbert page. You asked for my opinion, so here it is. I still firmly believe the article should have been deleted. My view was not consensus, and that is fine. But I am kinda bored of talking about the article. I expended a lot of energy, in vain, in order to argue my corner. I am not sure I am willing to do that again for the same article. Sorry, and good luck with your renaming proposal! Batmanand | Talk 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do decide to lobby for a move, drop me a message and I will gladly vote to move. I am just not in the mood to argue over it anymore! Happy editing. Batmanand | Talk 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Luigi
Hello again! I will check the Luigi article later today (although that may be tomorrow in Wikipedia's time). I am not really very good at reviewing yet, and have asked for help to more knowledgeable people while improving some articles. As for the rumours, I am sure there are surprises, but I don't really think a PPU would be used. You know, no other console before used one, and I would advertise it (stating that with a PPU you don't need a powerful CPU to get the same physics result than a powerful chip). However, it fits Nintendo's idea of not focusing on power to keep that announcement hidden. -- ReyBrujo 11:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have checked the article, and it looks pretty good. I have made some minor corrections. Here are some ideas:
 * The article needs more references. In example, when it is stated that in the manual they refer as smarter, it should have a reference to the page in it. Two references are too few.
 * There are still a lot of "familiar" (at least for me) wording. In example, where he saved the day (which I removed since it didn't really add to the article and was a spoiler that was not marked), When Mario made the jump to comics in 1990, Luigi made the jump with him., The film implies that their parents died shortly after Luigi was born, leaving Mario as Luigi's only "parents" (is it really necessary the second part of the sentence?), etc.
 * Either remove red links (like "The Great Mission to Rescue Princess Peach", I removed another), or create the article.
 * There is no image balance. There is one at the beginning, and then three in the same section. I don't like that, but it is understandable since the other media information is wider. Maybe making that section larger to balance the images inside the section?
 * Something must be done with ruiji (類似, ruiji?) Use the nihongo template to match the one used at the beginning of the article, or remove the ?.
 * I think that is all. The article is pretty good as is, but needs references. Note that the "Good" status is given by a reviewer according to his own interpretations of the rules, thus you need some "luck" to get one who likes the article and isn't that picky. Maybe you could send the article to a peer review to get more ideas?


 * In any case, very good work! -- ReyBrujo 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A smile


A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Nintendo-Portal Notice
You listed yourself as a member of Wikiproject Nintendo. Please do see This proposal for a nintendo Portal.-- A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fiefdom
For the record, I have been threatened by administrators with blocking for discussing this topic. "Fiefdom" is the only word that applies. :( --Jayzel 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
Excellent edits to the Stephen Colbert article! Keep up the good work! Makaristos 22:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how the word "historic" is POV. As you can see from the College's page, there is a 230 year history. It was named after 2 men who influenced American founding fathers, it was founded by men who every American third grade student reads about in history books (Patrick Henry for example was on the original Board of Trustees). Alumni include senators, congressmen, a president, business owners, and recently the son of the current Dutch prime minister. A large portion of the College has been deisgnated a National Historic Preservation Zone. It is one of 2 truely all male colleges left in the US. The Union-Philanthropic Literary Society is the second oldest in the country. As you may or may not know, literary societies are the predecessors of modern day fraternities. Honorary members of the organization include General Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis; Presidents James Madison, William Henry Harrison (himself formerly a student at Hampden-Sydney), John Tyler, James Buchanan, and Franklin Pierce; writers Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Makepeace Thackeray, Edgar Allan Poe, and George Will; politicians Patrick Henry, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, Adlai Stevenson, and Tip O'Neill; and King Louis Philippe of France. The Medical College of Virginia was originally founded and owned by HSC. The College is a plethora of names and events straight from history books. I agree that the word "elite" may be POV, but the word "historical" is absolutely true and can be seen simply by visiting its link.

Stephen Colbert (Part II - External Links)
I'm appealing to you on this section of your Talk web site because I value your opinion as an objective Wiki editor, especially in regards to the Stephen Colbert related sites. Two fan sites which have been linked for months on the main Stephen Colbert Wiki site in the External Links section were removed without reason today. Both sites, NoFactZone.net and Colbert's Heroes are topical and relevant to the topic at hand. Speaking for my own site, I can tell you that it is updated daily on topical news coverage and is an excellent resource for people who are looking to find more information on Stephen Colbert, which is the entire purpose of external links. Feel free to check it out to see what I'm talking about. I could understand if they pulled my site because technically I did violate the rule of putting up my own site. But to pull both sites after they were reinserted, with justification, I feel is not right. Could you peek your head in there and give your opinion on the situation? Obviously I'd like my site linked, but I'll trust your opinion as a seasoned moderator of those boards. Thank you for taking the time to do this. It is greatly appreciated. Nofactzone 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going to bat for me on the Colbert page. This Man In Black person seems to be bound and determined to not allow "spam" on the main Stephen Colbert page. (By the way, I never saw him on any of the Colbert pages before this issue came up - I wonder if there is some kind of ulterior motive to his actions?). But to say I'm "advertising" implies that there is money being made.  I make NO money from my site.  I have a tiny Amazon link page where I earned a whopping $2.40 in Amazon credit last quarter which, by the way, will be used to buy a Colbert DVD or something else related to the site.  It's irritating that he seems the sites as spam as opposed to a reliable news source for fans.  Colbert's Heroes has been stressing the "fan experience", collecting show taping reviews and giving detailed instructions on what to do at tapings and how to get tickets to the show.  It is very valuable, as other than some random LJ posts, this information isn't in a central site except for at Colbert's Heroes.  I get hundreds of hits a day - not being linked on Wiki is not going to affect my visitor's count much, and I don't make money with more hits on the site that would be generated with a Wiki link.  The sole reason I do the site is because it's the kind of site *I* wanted to find when I first started getting into The Colbert Report.  Other than personal satisfaction of a job well done, the only other reward I get from doing this site is knowing that I am performing a valuable service to Colbert fans.  Have you ever tried to find Colbert news? I spend hours a day sifting through the detritus on Google News to find the few gems that I do to present to Colbert fans on my site.  I even on occasion find cool scoops about things that are going on with the show.  Our sites are valuable additions to the resources listed on the site.  And it's frustrating being listed as "spam" by someone who acts as if they've never even been to either site.  Ok, enough venting.  Thank you for putting in a good word for me, although it looks like this guy is bound and determined to not let any fan sites into the External Links section.  Nofactzone 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Email
Hey Lee, do you have an email you could enable for WP communication through your preferences? I just read your latest comment in the discussion, and I'll respond on that page if I don't hear from you about this, but I think we may be straying a bit too much into the abstract, and covering ground that most people watching the page are probably well decided on. I definitely want to keep talking about this, but I feel a little guilty filling up the talk page and other people's watchlists with a discussion between us talkative newbies, and talk pages are a less-than-ideal medium for conversation-style communication. If you enable an email, we can talk about this over a slightly quicker medium, without flooding the talk page. Thanks, --RobthTalk 03:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page, (and added an email for use by one and all.) -- Lee Bailey(talk) 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mbplayers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mbplayers.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Note that any unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  o. s. p  13:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! Fair use rational now provided on the /image page. I'll be checking over others I've added soon. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

E.T.
M'k, fair enough. One thing I'd like some help working into is the claim that "almost all of the cartridges sold were sent back". It's commonly mentioned in discussing E.T., but I can't figure out how to source it at all. The only thing I have that can somewhat work is a quote, everything else is too vague. The "explanations" section might need to be removed entirely. It is a bit filled with my own original research, I'll admit. --SeizureDog 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what happened? It's been well over half a month now and I still see nothing on your part at E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600). I thought you were going to get some books and fix it up :/ --SeizureDog 09:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FFVI FAC
Hi, Lee. Thanks for your comments on FFVI's FAC. I've done my best to address your concerns, so please stop by and check out the Reception section and let us know if it satisfies them. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 01:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, Lee. Thanks for your other comments. I think I've been able to take care of all of them now. Check it out and let us hope that it's enough to turn that "Oppose" upside down. Feel free to let us know if we're still coming up short. We'll do what we can. Ryu Kaze 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. ^^ Also, thanks again for the helpful input. Have a good one. Ryu Kaze 23:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert
This article is now semi-protected, and will hopefully remain so. —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert / Tek Jansen
You have done really great work with the page. Sorry to butt heads over this but there wouldn't be a need for the page if Colbert didn't have fanatics like myself.Typing monkey 01:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Something I'd like to note. If you read the tekjansen forums, it appears that Steven doesn't have full rights to do things with his image and name without approval, (If you believe the site...and having had /some/ experience with how asinine publishing/etc companies can be, I believe it) - and thus can't do things such as self-publish his novel or have a webpage like that unless its completly unofficial. Now, if you pay attention...stuff has appeared there /BEFORE/ its been on the show. Which seems to validate it. It doesn't /need/ any link from the corporate website. Though, I'll also note that the Tek Jansen author 'tyrone' claims to have emailed you on his forums, and laments that if you'd just pick apart his email header, its come from a comededy central email address. (Assuming that by 'that annoying guy who really doesn't want this site listed, and will keep vanalyzing it over and over again' he means you) Hewhorulestheworld 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Personally, I had to find out about the tekjansen website by looking at the Wikipedia Talk pages, rather then the articles /whose purpose is to inform us about things we'd like to know about/ - and find it really, really annoying that I can't get plainly relevent information without a runaround. Hewhorulestheworld 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Tell Tyrone to check his e-mail" - Given that a Wikipedia rep has already tried to get Stephen Colbert to confirm that he made those edits during his show, and the motive was clearly less of an attempt to get at the "truth" than to get on the teevee, I doubt you'll get a serious response. Even if you did, I have no idea what kind of tangible evidence you expect to find in an e-mail that can't already be found on the site.Typing monkey 01:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If the "simple way around this" is to get Stephen Colbert to contact Wikipedia and personally ask for the site to be listed? Do other celebrities have to personally ask wikipedia to carry websites related to them? It's absurd. Why doesn't it just charge them a fee for inclusion, that would simplify things even further. And although the difference between a Wikipedia "admin" and someone with "official capacity" may be clear to you, why should that be clear to anyone outside of Wikipedia? And what exactly is the difference? Typing monkey 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think the site has to falsify its top referrers page. Even the the link comes and goes, Wikipedia is still a top referrer for the site. The assumption that the referrers list is a lie speaks to your attitude that the site is some kind of a 'con' - not exactly a neutral position. Again, why should Colbert have to have a fifteen-minute discussion with a Wikirep(TM) in order to have a link to a site which is explicitly about him and his work included in the links section of a page dedicated to him? Has any other public figure discussed on Wikipedia been asked to do this?Typing monkey 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See your own comments in the discussion page 25 July. You've suggested before that the site lies about its referrers. I'm not angry, just exasperated. It's rather rude to quote the rulebook, when you do not worry about the rules when it pertains to linking other related websites. - see WP:EL. Site owners should not submit their own links for inclusion. Yet all three of the other fansites listed are owner submitted. This is the only one that is not, and yet you are demanding that the owner personally request inclusion, in violation of the guidelines.Typing monkey 11:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all your contributions, hard work, etc. to Stephen Colbert. You're a hero! --Makaristos 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So ridiculous. I want to talk to Stephen Colbert for 15 minutes too, that isn't how it works though and that's a shame because he's really great and I'd really like it. We should de-list IMDB.com because it's making money off of celebrity images, runs excessive ads and sells premium services in several different forms. I'm done with the issue, I have no more fight in me. I found last night that Wiki editors refuse to give Wikiality its own article. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case, this is pure emotion at this point. Oh, and those of us in the Members-Only section of Tek Jansen do know things you don't, and that's fine, it can be our little secret and you can find out later like the rest of the world. I just resent a lone zealot causing so much trouble, though I do say you do go work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.162.88 (talk • contribs)

Re: Your AMA request - The user forums at tekjansen.com are more 'private' in the sense that they are conversations held outside of Wikipedia, yet you had no problem 'summarizing' them in order to misrepresent my position and to imply that I have bad faith. Your AMA request is a publicly available page, and I will defend myself as long as you continue to misrepresent my arguments or comments. Typing monkey 04:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would probably be best if we both take a break from it. I'll agree to do that if you will agree, in the interim, to allow or at least not interfere with the link as an "unofficial" site, or even simply as a "fansite", and revisit the issue in 90 days (including tracking it or changing it by bots). The whole brouhaha might become moot before then (then again, it might not). If we still need to mediate or get advocates involved we could do it at that time.Typing monkey 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to compromise at all, then we are right back where we started. I feel you are being unfair, particuarly since you revealed in your AMA request that you admit that you believe the link is probably genuine. I also believe the consensus, such as it is, is fueled more by high emotions over the recent 'wikiality' controversy than actual investigation into the tekjansen's site's merits for inclusion. So no, I do not agree to stop adding the link. We can three-revert-rule it every day, if you like. Talk about dynamic content. I have also requested an advocate. Typing monkey 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! I wanted to apologize for my recent incredibly stupid revert of the Stephen Colbert article.  I intended to make only a modest change in the introductory paragraph and somehow unintentionally reverted the whole article to an earlier version, which removed all the information you (correctly) reinstated.  Sorry for the confusion!Hal Raglan 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

GFDL issue
The GFDL requires a few things, among these, a copying site must:
 * have a local copy of the GFDL
 * continue to license the material under the GFDL

Neither of the two Wikiality sites complies. Wikiality.com goes further; it has a page proclaiming its defiance of copyright. To get the content removed or properly licensed, a copyright holder needs to act. Since you are a significant contributor, you are such a person.

Getting the Wikiality sites to remove the content or properly license it under the GFDL is fairly simple. You have to send a DMCA Takedown Notice to the hosting company, which is Dreamhost.com. jeff(at)dreamhost[dot]com is the email address of the person there who handles DMCA notices. Wikipedia has a DMCA letter template notice available for your use. In it, you need to identify yourself as a copyright holder, list pages that include content you've significantly contributed to, and request removal or proper GFDL compliance.

Dreamhost will then send the person who owns the account an email informing them of the letter. This should be no surprise to them, as I've posted the information to several article talk pages on their wikis, and they've responded.

If you have any questions, post again to my talk page. --Davidstrauss 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Update - Tekjansen.com/Wikiality
You, sir’aam, are the instigator/rix who initially removed the link and began this dispute. In between then and now, there has been an internecine Wikifrenzy over the “Wikiality” comments made by Colbert. People are angry and talking about the DMCA takedowns and GDFL shakedowns and copyleft and right and cease and desist orders and legal action and rampant vandals and pissing contests. I think this has created an environment which prevents dispassionate evaluation of tekjansen.com’s merits for inclusion on the page, at this time. Since you are the main editor of the page, since you began the dispute, and since, as you state in your AMA request, no one else seems to have a dog in this fight but you, and since by reading the comments you are clearly the only one who has actually taken the time to make a genuine attempt to investigate the site’s authenticity, and since, as stated in your AMA request, you agree that the site is Colbert-related (or at least “Colbertian”, if not “Colberteriffic”), you could, if you like, allow the link and it would likely not be disputed. You have a posse, just like Colbert. People will likely follow your lead.

But the most important consideration is this: We are arguing over the relevance of a Colbert site that we both, according to your comments in your AMA request, believe is written by the subject of the page under discussion. The fact that you are insisting that we let the Maybe-Not-So-All-Knowing Consensus decide that something we both believe to be genuine is not, in fact, reality, is the essence of Wikiality. Should a reference work be guided by fact, or what a majority decides should be fact? Do you not see the absurdity of this? Do you not think this is an excellent case study on the subject of Wikiality? Do you think maybe this very dispute over Colbert’s booksite sparked the creation of the idea of “Wikiality” in the first place?

I’m not angry with you, by the way, even though our discussions may have been heated lately. I still think you’ve done an excellent job with the page, and that seems to be the consensus over at tekjansen.com, as well. Typing monkey 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your question about the 'majority'

What the ‘majority’ thinks is not at issue here. Nor is your attempt to incorrectly recharacterize my argument as an attempt to prevent others from ‘having their say.’ You are ignoring my arguments about bad faith, group think, NPOV, and Wikiality. You are also ignoring Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:CON :

"Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate...it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus...[vote-counting is] not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate..."

I am giving this brick-wall battle a rest for the moment for the reasons described in my earlier comment. But I do not concede that consensus has been reached.Typing monkey 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are worried about “letting others have their say”? I went back to do a headcount, and I find that there are 6 who have commented in support of the link, including a major contributor to the Colbert Report page and to the Stephen Colbert page. I count 7 who have expressed doubt, and some of those were only at your request for additional input, meaning they did not feel strongly enough about it to contribute to the original discussion. Is this a consensus to you? Typing monkey 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Question re Tekjansen link
Sorry to bother you, I'm researching the controversy, as I may be acting as TypingMonkey's advocate (pending his acceptance of my help) and I'd like to clarify what the issue is.

I read most of what you wrote on TM's talk page, seems to me you pretty much want to just resolve this however is best. It seems pretty straightforward, so I don't think its a big deal. I would like to understand what you object to before I try to give any advice... As I understand it you want to to exclude the link... Do you want to do so because "it's a paid site with limited free content", or because it might be a hoax site, ie not Colbert's site?, or some other reason?

Thanks a lot for your time and for your contributions to the project. User:Pedant 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

part 2, questions?
OK, I think I get you about the link, my understanding now is you think we need either proof of the site being associated with Colbert rather than just 'about' him (and barely so at that)

or

Some evidence that the site contributes encyclopedic value to the article about Colbert...

before we should include the site as an external link -- is this a generally correct summary?

Would you object to the site being mentioned, but not linked? Or does that also seem improper?

Sorry to keep pestering you about it, but TypingMonkey's biggest complaint is in essence that you won't allow the link, (not precisely that but it's a fair summary) and I really appreciate the time you've taken to answer my questions. Please let me know if I've misunderstood something, or anything like that. One last thinkg, you've been involved in the talk on this, so do you think the general consensus follows your reasoning? Is there any point where your viewpoint and the consensus disagree? Thanks very much for your patience. User:Pedant 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you do understand my arguments, Pedant, and it would have been nice if you'd spoken to me about it first, since I'm the one who requested your help. I see that it's useless, and have withdrawn my request.  Bailey, you mentioned archiving the longer sections of the talk page on Colbert.  If you want to archive the discussion on tekjansen, which is rather long, it's fine with me.Typing monkey 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Such utter nonsense. Somebody has to PROVE something? So many (yes editors, yes even on this page) have aserted that they feel its legit, even Bailey has said she suspected as much from the tone of it. Pull your heads out of your wikis for a minute and TAKE A LOOK WITH YOUR EYEBALLS at the front page of the site. Limited free content? Nonsense. Primarily commercial? The only ads on the front page are FOR COMEDY CENTRAL. Yes, they are in button, link, Flash and video form, but it's all FOR COMEDY CENTRAL. This has gone a million miles beyond a question of "legitimacy" and I say that with quotes and quotation fingers both. This is wikiality and you guys are impossible. You know they have like 300 members they could ask to assert the link, right? They haven't done that, nobody has 'vandalized' anything. You're unkind, unfair and so entrenched in yoru own dogma it makes me just about sick to my stomach, and that's no joke. I'd say it on the phone, i'd say it to your face, it's the bottom line truth. GBH 02:45, 29 August, 2006 (UTC)

Colbert RVs
just looking at Parry's wikipedia page, you can tell he comes from a left-wing perspective -- writing for Democracy Now, Alternet, the fact he started ConsortiumNews, and looking at the "October Surprise" theory (though i don't know that he actually endorsed it.) there are certain investigative journalists -- take, for example, Bob Woodward -- who may hold certain views but don't let it reflect in their reports. looking at Parry's page, though, you can tell he's personally left-wing from the types of things he's investigating -- even though he may have some compelling arguments based in fact.

i don't know about the other guy you editted in, but just looking at his page, i would say he's liberal as well. this idea that the press "doesn't do enough" to criticize a conservative administration like Bush's is not generally shared outside of liberal circles. if he's been criticized for bias by a WaPo ombudsman -- hardly any conservative or partisan position -- that's also of note.

not trying to discredit these guys, just that i think their political views will be relevant to how they view something like this. just like i think Cohen's liberalism is relevant because it shows that criticisms of Colbert weren't necessarily coming from conservatives who don't like him. and surely blogs like Daily Kos are relevant if we're talking about popularity on the Internet.

sorry for the length, just didn't wanna summarily revert. i'll move this to the talk if you want. Free Trey 05:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mystery Screenshot
The screenshot happens to be from the Colbert Report, and one screenshot-license is usable per article, so I figured I'd pop in a guest-interview screenshot. I'll describe it in the article if need be. Also, if someone needs to put in their more important screenshot, we can shift things around; mainly, it's the kind of thing Crossfire has. Cheers, Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab!  13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems, I loved that episode; Stewart always ends up cracking up and taking Stephen down with him. And that shot is the best because of their expressions; they're truely the best comedians out there at the moment. Oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY! :)

Cheers, Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab!  01:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday!!


Many happy returns and enjoy the day! Thisthema n  06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish you very happy birthday. All the best! --Bhadani 15:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image source?
Regarding Image:Stephen Colbert TDS.png, I believe it was simply a single frame I took from a streaming video available at the Daily Show website. I don't remember the details, however, and the list of The Daily Show correspondent titles is of no help in this matter. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we done with E.T.?
Is there any more research you think we need to do with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)? Or can we get to re-nominating it for FA? --SeizureDog 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)