User talk:Pixelface/Archive 1

Your edits
...thusfar have been excellent! Keep it up! Budgiekiller 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Spore
Hi, you sent a message about an edit I made in the Spore article while I was accidently not logged in with my real user name. Thanks for taking the time to guide newcomers.

About the actual edit I also believe that souch statements should be cited, however the video where he talks about "The demoscene influence" was allready refrenced else where in the article. So i have reverted it back again. I am not sure if it's a good idea to use the same refrence twice?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tranqulizer (talk • contribs) 07:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

SNL
Yes. Some are leaving for other projects, some are leaving because of budget cuts from NBC. NBCs SNL site, has their bio page, which has all the -2006 on it. I was just taking it from there. Koolgiy 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

National Socialist German Workers Party
How can adding an interwiki be vandalism ? I think you got your message on the wrong page, I guess you wanted to warn the user with IP 80.47.212.102. 82.41.19.185 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tax protester statutory arguments
Any additional comments regarding neutral point of view or other matters on the above-referenced article would be appreciated. Yours, Famspear 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIAV
Hi Pixelface, thanks for your reporting the vandalism on WP:AIAV. However, I noticed that you put User talk:206.171.118.100 on the list, but as you can see from Special:Contributions/206.171.118.100, this user hasn't made any edits in the last 36 hours or so. Just so you know, that board is more for ongoing vandalism that should be nipped in the bud. Thanks again! -- Deville (Talk) 04:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unix time edits
Hi Pixelface, while I appreciate your concern about my edits, I would like to point out that my addition was factual, researched, and completely correct. It did not 'attack wtc' (whatever that means), it added informative context to the time and date of the event described. If we could work out some compromise regarding this, and I still believe that my edit was informative and proper. --timecop 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

your warning to 150.101.181.34
This user has just vandalised another page. Can you act on your warning? cheeers MichaelW 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your NPOV comments on tax issues
I have found some of the edits on tax issues to be worded in such a way that they show bias against so-called "tax protesters." I'm glad you pointed some out. 206.124.31.24 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Make Love, Not Warcraft
You participated in defense of this article's original content. This is just to let you know that a small group of editors has gutted the article, and due to the ensuing edit war, the article has been protected and a RFC has been issued. You may wish to return to the article and leave your two cents. - 66.93.144.171 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On The Lot
Thanks for taking the time to incorporate those references instead of just reverting it :) TheHYPO 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Streisand effect AfD notice
Hi &mdash; I replaced your blatantvandal warning to User:LongBay with uw-afd1. While this user has a moderately colorful history, removing an AfD tag doesn't constitute blatant vandalism. (See avoidant vandalism) &mdash; Feezo (Talk) 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Template messages has a standardized table of user warnings, though it doesn't include the more obscure/amusing ones like BlueHelmet. &mdash; Feezo (Talk) 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Liz Claiborne
Hi, I was just trying to follow the rules of importance. Liz Claiborne the company, is far more "important" then the founder. Disambiguation page like in the case of Gateway and Nike would work too (which was never done here), but I don't think it is necessary (since there are only two articles). The reason I switched it, is I felt the billion dollar company was slightly more important then the person who founded it because no one looking for the company would type "Inc." Also, I didn't disregard or delete the corprate website, all I did was put the website of their main label in addition. I also made a large number of edits to the company's page. As for finding information on the founder, I created a redirect right at the top of the page and her name appears right at the start of the history section, now near the top of the page. If you feel that the company is just as important as the founder for initial searching, let us create a disambiguation page like Nike and Gateway. Epson291 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the trouble I caused you, that wasn't my intent. I wasn't going to fix the links (other then double redirects) until it was fairly determined the page would stay where it was. Thanks for fixing them. Epson291 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Koehler
What episode was "Ding" from? I found the exact episode that that filthy piece of trash "The Malibu Myth" was from and also the episode for "Discovering the Wheels," but I haven't seen "Ding" yet. Sexyactionnick 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that it was that important, but...
You nominated Look at the silly monkey for deletion??? Wow. Umm... don't we have more important things to do? See, the thing is, so long as Chewbacca Defense is considered not to be nonsense, so too must be Look at the silly monkey. These Google results also suggest that it's a very real Internet meme, almost in its own right. Not that I'm saying it should have its own article. It was only a redirect. Geez. Bastin 11:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Cite on Meme page
Please be more careful on your choice of criticisms. The book criticized as "stating no such thing" reguarding memes being a scientific theory and having a degree of social penitration as a meme itself. The book devotes an entire chapter to this. "Out of Control" is an overview of the state of modern Cybernetics, and as such examines memes as an aspect of social controls with a life of their own, the concept which the book takes its name from. As with quantum physics, the termiology of the field is frequently highjacked by fringe theorists and mystics, but this does not mean that the field they steal from is not a legitimate field of study. I am not trying to be rude, or condecending, but removal of a citation is tantamount to vandalism. People have been blocked for acts like that. Yours was not a case of malace such as those were, but I mention this as a word of caution against removing cited information without thinking twice. I hope our next meeting is one of costructive cooperation rather than conflict.-- S c or pio n4 5 1 rant 06:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Effects under discussion
Thought you'd want to know that Category:Effects was proposed for possible deletion. The nomination was made by another editor; I haven't reached any conclusions yet as to what I will recommend myself. I did notice that you didn't place it in a parent category. If you wish to take part in the discussion, go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_16. Cgingold 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality film
AFD isn't a vote. The arguments for keeping and the arguments for deletion were equally strong, in my opinion, so I closed as no consensus. --Core desat 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Re:, I think this is really needlessly WP:UNCIVIL. If you can't discuss the topic seriously, perhaps you should just refrain. Pete.Hurd 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold off on the revert-warring
If you aren't aware of WP:3RR, familiarize yourself with it now, as you're on the threshold of a block. I'd really like to recommend you work harder on convincing others of your views than resorting to revert wars, which don't accomplish anything.--Father Goose 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the three-revert rule. Thank you for your message. --Pixelface 18:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Trivia speedy deletion tag
Please participate in talk page discussions before tagging such a widely-used template for speedy deletion. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I owe you an apology
I don't agree with your stance on Trivia, but it appears that I was very unfair to you on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections. I apologise unreservedly, and hope you will forgive me. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, I appreciate you accepting my apology and also for your own! And I didn't take much offense to the trivia comment you made, because I knew that it wasn't directed at me personally, but that you were illustrating a point. Which, of course, I disagreed with vehemently :-) Now I'm going back to what I enjoy the most - editing Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reception sections

 * Oh, I've noticed your Eastern Promises and The Brave One (2007 film) contributions, too... pretty long in the tooth compared to the rest of the article! (Not that I'm complaining... would rather that it's overly in-depth than not comprehensive enough.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice going again! Can I suggest, though, that you italicize newspapers when you mention them?  It's needed per WP:MOS. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi
It's me, that 211 guy. Thanks for your apology you made on my talkpage.. I think I should clear this up: you didn't offend me in any way at all. That's sort of my fault- I didn't make that very clear. I know you were acting out of goodwill- it's just that I really don't want anyone else to post that sort of thing, more because it's just I'm generally a busy sort of guy and don't want too much sort of stuff like that because it's a bit of a waste of time, if you know what I mean. I remember getting so much junk in my email account from other sites I ended up cancelling my account with them as my messages were so bogged down in junk and my friends were getting annoyed because I wasn't reading their messages and it was a bit of a mess, and I really don't want that to happen again here, so I put those in before it did. I have to admit that I also sometimes like to rant on like that for a bit of a laugh (somewhat like this guy, and was under the impression that nobody was going to find out. I've altered the requests so now they don't suggest I was smoking somehting when I wrote them as much as they used to.

So yeah- sorry for making it look like I was offended- that was a stuff-up on my part. Thanks dude! :)

Interestingly- I have worked out the solution for the large amounts of crap I was dealing with- I now have a second email account. One is for friends and people I know. The other is for whenever I have to register with people. Then they can spam me all they want. I'm never going to get a bit of it.

P.S. Apologies in the event that you have seen this. I have this thing with leaving stuff on the op of pages, as I've gotten so used to it from other sites. Anyway, there is some new stuff:

P.P.S. You may remember our little dispute over the owned article. I may have found a source for the contested stuff. You can find it at the bottom of that article's talkpage. If you think it's ok, I'll cite it as a source.211.30.132.2 08:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.. ET: QW
Thanks for improving my submission to the Enemy Territry: Quake Wars page, I quickly copied and pasted it because I was tired :(. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veneration (talk • contribs) 23:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your message on spoiler tagging
Thank you for your message. I know that you are following the discussion on WT:SPOILER, and that you have read the guideline. Therefore, you are well aware that, at present, Wikipedia articles do not have spoiler tags within sections captioned "Plot", "Plot Summary", "Synopsis", and so forth.

I realize that you are not happy with this situation. The existing guideline, frankly, is not what I would have chosen either. However, I do see a value in maintaining Wiki-wide consistency, and I am clearly not alone in this. There are numerous editors who routinely remove spoiler when it is misused.

I have repeatedly suggested to those that want to see spoiler tags widely used, that they should develop a case for them with real evidence, instead of just putting eccentric opinions on the spoiler guideline talk page, or just putting spoiler tags on random articles and hoping they'll stick (they won't).

Suggesting that section headings aren't "reliable sources" is a non-starter. Everyone understands that a section heading can reasonably be expected to contain what it says. If that's the best argument you can muster, you've lost already. Roger Ebert's opinion is interesting, but he's only one opinion (like you or me), and he's really in a different business than we are. Marc Shepherd 13:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast sections
Hey, I was wondering if you were implementing bold formatting in Cast sections. I've seen "Actor as Role" in these sections more recently and was wondering if you were the culprit, seeing you made this edit. Bold formatting is not supposed to be used in such simple lists; they're used in the lists if each bulleted entry has substantial detail behind each one, such as at Sunshine (2007 film) or The Dark Knight (film). It helps each bulleted entry stand out better, whereas in a simple list, there's no need to do so. Hope this makes sense! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

300-page iPhone bill
I saw that you removed the Saleem info noting that blogs are not RS. While that is generally true, the blog itself was not used as a source. It was referenced to three other secondary sources, some of which you also removed. Also the bit about related bills were taken from media coverage of this event, so RS thought it was appropriate to include related details, and this article follows that lead. All of this was related referenced content you removed, and I would like you to reconsider its removal. Dhaluza 08:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Film ratings
My issue with film ratings is that they don't provide any encyclopedic value in a film article, whether it was too broad or limited to English-speaking territories. I think rating information can be included if there was a specific reason for its rating. Some examples: Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 compared to its predecessors, the BBFC's rating treatment at Fight Club (film), or something like Disney's first PG-13 film being Pirates of the Caribbean (can't remember if this is true or not). Furthermore, a mention of the rating is not descriptive -- is it due to strong language, sexual content, drug usage, violence? Not to mention that such a ratings box is not verifiable -- no room for citation, and from what I've seen, people pull the figures off IMDb, much of which is user-submitted and not accurate. I've been considering putting the template up for deletion. It's been up before, and I think the arguments could be presented better. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a time table that helps the reader determine if he or she can see the film based on the rating or anything else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Each country has a different ratings system. What makes a movie a "R" here does not necessarily make it the equivalent grade in another country. Each country has different standards, and some tend to allow certain scenes in lower grades than other countries. Thus, just simply listing every possible rating, even simply doing just English speaking countries, would be indiscriminate because they have no real meaning. What does "R" denote? It could denote a lot of things, but unless you know why, it because simply indiscriminate information about the film. What makes a film "R" here, but "13" in Argentina, or "MA15+" in Australia? If it has no context then it isn't beneficial to the page. You brought up film times, well they typically don't change from country to country, unless that country is cutting out scenes. There is usually a reason for them to remove scenes from a film. If you only list the US, then you're being biased to the US. Listing every English speaking country gives no context, it has no meaning. It simply says "this was an R, this was a 15," but we have no way of knowing why they were given those ratings. And since the rating systems are based on subjective calls, the why is rather important.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the link to the MPAA. Those are classification catagories, which doesn't tell us why the film got an "R" or a "PG-13", but simply what classification they fell in. For instance, there are certain scenes in Friday the 13th that had to be trimmed because the MPAA kept wanting to give the filmmakers an "X" rating. That's worth noting, because it has context. Saying "it's gory" doesn't really help. Gore in general doesn't elicit a specific rating, it's the type of gore, sometimes it's certain scenes. There are specific reasons for the ratings, which go beyond the simple "sexuality" qualifiers. Also, this is an English Wikipedia, not an American Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you are meeting opposition to this, I would suggest that you start a discussion at WP:MOSFILMS, as that is the guideline for film articles, and it would be best to get community consensus for something you think should be added.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Take it up on the manual of style page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I already know what it says, or for that matter what it doesn't say. You are the one that met opposition on film pages. It isn't a general practice for them to be there. I would suggest that you and Erik take the discussion to the MOS for film pages so that a specific answer can be hashed out by the film community and placed on the guidelines page. Ok then. Have a nice night.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, 287 articles is not a lot when you think about how many film artciles we have. But, if you choose not to continue your debate over there, that's your decision. Don't be surprised if more editors remove the box. Just because a guideline doesn't mention doesn't mean it's accepted. Since there are probably a few thousand film articles, 287 doesn't really scream that it's more likely that they will have the box.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Teabagging - Your recent edit
Just because you have not heard of teabagging in video games, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is in fact a very common practice, and I did write in the article that a "crouching motion is performed in order to simulate the act".

Don't edit before you get your facts right.

And don't even bother pointing me to WP:AGF because you didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLDrinker (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point. You don't remove content as soon as it is created because there are missing citations. What you do is either add "Citation Needed" or the original research tag so that someone can find an appropriate citation.
 * Examples of usage are:


 * http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060620103646AAFuh1N
 * http://www.teamuk1.co.uk/9.html
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=151MkfiY5hA
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuR_0tAgAmg
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRPW0iPtao
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ewY_GuAEg
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ_Z-tMPKqI
 * etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLDrinker (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I decided to defy you and find an article by GamesRadar (Which although you will try to find a problem with, is a legit site). The video was created by GamesRadar, not a fan. Is that proof enough for you? Also haven't you noticed that teabagging in video games has been added hundreds of times and you are the only person that keeps reverting it.
 * http://www.gamesradar.com/us/xbox360/game/features/article.jsp?sectionId=1003&articleId=20070831133049375071&releaseId=20060321132945404017 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLDrinker (talk • contribs) 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, I apologise for sounding a bit rude in my earlier discussion. I thought you were one of the administrators that are messing this Wiki up by being over protective on articles.TheLDrinker 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo
Hi, it appears this user (with probably others involved) has a long history of defending the inclusion of NNDB links and the template and is possibly involved in that website - see my comments at the end of the template discussion and the Village Pump where miraculously Quatloo turned up! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Italics
Ah, when I suggested that, I meant in the body of the article, not when it came to references. For reasons I'm unclear about, Template:Cite news automatically italicized the information in publisher attributes in the past, but stopped doing that one day. I assumed that there was some agreement to modify the template to change the approach about using italics. I guess it has something to do with the intrinsic difference between "publisher" and "work", but I agree with you -- it's made sense to put something like The Star-Ledger under "publisher". Maybe you could inquire about it at the template talk page? I personally have not witnessed any issues about how the template should be used; filling out "publisher" has been enough in all cases. When other editors use it in the same way for a print source, I'm able to track it down with the given information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Alfred P. Sloan Prize
Category:Alfred P. Sloan Prize has been nominated for merging; you are invited to comment in the discussion located here. &mdash;A 23:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and Utube
Pixelface, Wikipedia's fair use policy permits the use of screenshots from copyrighted videos such as the instance you removed here. See The Bus Uncle for a featured article that makes good use of non-free screenshots. Please consider restoring the image.--chaser - t 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize the fair use policy allows screenshots of copyrighted videos, I just think the image can be replaced with a freer alternative. YouTube took down the video the screenshot supposedly comes from, but the video for The Bus Uncle is still available on YouTube. I've listed Jokela-school-shooter.jpg for deletion. You can discuss it here. --Pixelface 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your image removal campaign on Jokela school shooting is getting disruptive. The IFD discussion ended in a unanimous keep consensus. If you continue to go against this result by edit warring, you will find yourself blocked pretty quickly. Prolog 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jokela school shooting
Please, stop your revisions. Pekka-Eric Auvinen was not a hero. He was just a lonely boy and the victim of school bullying. I can translate finnish news websites if necessary. Peltimikko 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot warnings on No Country For Old Men (film)
I removed the warnings per this page. The title of the section ("Plot") implies that there will be spoilers. Warnings are only necessary when spoilers are unexpected (in another section of an article, for example). --clpo13(talk) 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Currentfiction tag spamming
Hi Pixelface,

You need to stop spamming every movie and video game article you can find with the Currentfiction template. While I don't mind a level of judicious application, you are tagging games like Gears of War and Viva Piñata, both of which were released a year ago.

While I appreciate that you are being bold, this does not give you license to assert ownership and ignore consensus. If you haven't noticed already, it's not just me reverting your tagging of these articles--your actions are being contested by a number of editors.

All I'm asking is that you please cool it down for a little bit. You're going to get a lot of people riled up if you don't, and I'd hate to see something like this, which can be solved so easily, wind up in WP:DR. --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 12:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message and for agreeing to cool down a little bit. The problem I was having with what you were doing was the indiscriminate nature of it.  As you pointed out, new versions of Gears of War and Viva Piñata have indeed been released recently, but the template's purpose is to provide warning to people about plot elements, which in those cases have been public for a year.  In other cases (e.g. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, The Simpsons Game), the plot is non-existent at worst and secondary to the gameplay at best.  There's no Rosebud to be found in these works.


 * My other issue was the unilateral nature of what you were doing. Rather than bringing it up on the articles' talk pages, you were putting your stamp down and then re-reverting when someone disagreed with you.  After the first revert, you should have taken it to the talk page of either the article in question or the editor who reverted your change to discuss it rather than simply revert it back.


 * And finally, the fact is that the template is simply too new to have a defined scope yet. What qualifies as recent?  How long should it be left on?  How complex does the plot have to be to warrant tagging? Should this apply to TV shows that have just aired?  Should it be applied to old movies with notable spoilers?  None of these questions have yet been answered in the template's talk page or documentation (yes, I checked) or in WP:SPOILER, which means that you are already acting in the absence of consensus when you determine these answers for yourself.  Just because an admin says it's better than the old spoiler template doesn't mean it's flawless.


 * That being said, while I am not convinced the template has a place on Wikipedia, I recognize that it could be useful if the standards for usage are hammered out and adhered to. I can't guarantee that I won't send it to TFD per your edit summary suggestions, but I think your energy would be better spent right now trying to hammer out standards rather than simply slapping it on articles you are not necessarily involved in and then insisting it stay there.  Thanks again for your message, and I'll see you around! --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you might want to check WP:SPOILER. I reverted your changes per lack of consensus (it is a guideline, after all), and it seems that people are indeed trying to put in information about the usage of this template. --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Current fiction
I note from your contribs that you fought to keep the spoiler template. When that was deleted, you commandeered this one for the same purpose. I see no need for it. People are not stupid. Why do you feel the need to warn them that the film article they are about to read will contain information about the actual film? Please stop adding it to articles; you're doing it to some which have been on general release for a while now, too. Steve T • C 12:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Pixel, I think you're really violating WP:POINT here. ? Melodia Chaconne ? 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it disruptive to tag articles with the current fiction tag after an administrator says there is a consensus in favor of it? I'm confused. --Pixelface 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Other comments say it better than I could. You're simply tossing it everywhere, rather than thinking where it /should/ go. ? Melodia Chaconne ? 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not stop removing it. Putting to one side for the moment the template's validity or otherwise, why do you feel the need to warn people that the film article they are about to read might, gosh, contain information about the actual film? Steve T • C 12:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the validity of the template, Pixelface, I would like to point out that WP:SPOILER has yet to hammer out what is a "recent release" (your non-consensus edits aside). As such, you are acting completely unilaterally.  Not surprisingly (see above), this has resulted in several revert wars.


 * By the way, Liquid, do you want to swap pages to revert so we don't run into 3RR? --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 12:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008
I think there is dispute regarding your addition of the tag to the article about WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. Please see Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 for further discussion. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Current fiction template
Hi there, Pixelface, I happened to notice this argument and I thought I'd offer some thoughts. The first thing is that I think you may be misunderstanding what Guy meant when mentioning current fiction in the closing statement here. What he was saying, with respect to some of the arguments raised in the debate, was that many people acknowledged that we should look to deploying specific templates to suit specific circumstances, not that the consensus of the debate was that the template should simply replace spoiler.

The second thing is that it's not productive to be edit warring over this tag; it's not a life-and-death matter, and it would be senseless for anyone to get blocked over this. It would be particularly unfortunate if people were to see your discussion with Phil at the TfD in which you seem to acknowledge uncertainties in the proper usage of the template and come to the conclusion that you're being disruptive to make a point.

Now that there's some disagreement over the use of the template, it's probably the best idea to have a discussion about its proper use somewhere: you could start with its talkpage. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I misunderstood the closing admin. The admin said there was a consensus that the current fiction tag is more specific and better suited to articles. I don't think the current fiction tag replaces the spoiler tag. The current fiction tag is for articles on fictional works that have been recently released. I'm not edit warring over the tag. I looked at 2007 in film and tagged a bunch of articles about recent films and the tag was removed by Liquidfinale who said "By definition, the PLOT section will contain PLOT information" I felt that this user did not quite understand the tag because I did not tag plot sections, so I reverted their edits. Liquidfinale then reverted me again and said "It's a glorified SPOILER warning! Credit people who wish to avoid spoilers with having the intelligence to avoid the PLOT section" I have not reverted those edits. He/she apparently misunderstands the current fiction template. If he/she opposes it, I'm not going to force the issue. I also looked at 2007 in video gaming and added the current fiction tag to a bunch of articles about recently released videogames and jonny-mt removed the tag without any explanation in his/her edit summary. I reverted those edits and the user has reverted them again. I don't think it would be unfortunate if anyone read my comments during a TFD. I have nothing to hide. The closing admin felt that there was no consensus for my arguments so I followed his decision. Are you saying it's disruptive to add a template to articles after an admin has declared consensus that it should be used? --Pixelface 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not misunderstanding the template; at the time you added it to those articles, the information contained within the template was a spoiler warning. And nothing more. It has since been changed a couple of times, and may well change again before I've even finished writing this comment. Steve  T • C 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, at the time I added the current fiction tag to those film articles, the template displayed this: This article or section documents a recently released, or soon to be released work of fiction. It may contain detailed information on the plot and ending of the work of fiction it describes, and may lack the perspective for critical commentary." After placing the tag I realized the wording had been recently changed, so I reverted the template to the version from 15 days ago that had consensus. --Pixelface 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The guideline for the template now states: "This template is not meant to be on all fiction-related articles that are currently in production/about to be produced, just on those articles where containing changing and future information is an issue in some way (such as a show that could drastically change suddenly, an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic, articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is an in-progress or future work of fiction, etc)." This, coupled with the new wording of the template, seems to indicate that shouldn't be placed on all current-fiction articles, just those which lack any real-word perspective and/or critical commentary (i.e. those which are a plot and cast section). Best regards, Steve  T • C 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That edit to the template documentation is fairly recent as well. --Pixelface 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And? It seems to be uncontroversial thus far. And while it mey end up disputed (despite your instructions to take it to the template's talk page on a couple of occasions, you appear to be wary of doing so yourself) and changed again, perhaps blanket-adding it to all these articles should be left until the final wording and proposed usage is hammered out. Steve  T • C 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?
In the article meme you inserted the cite tags here:


 * Life forms transmit information vertically[citation needed] (from generation to generation) via replication of genes. Memes can also transmit information vertically by replication.[citation needed]


 * Is there a reason for these? I am sure I could find a thousands cites for this starting with the Lynch book, but it's really common knowledge. Keith Henson 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment on my user page. The first is just how life works. As you say, I know a lot about the topic, my wife suggested "memetics" for the study of memes and their relation to their hosts to Douglas Hofstadter back in the mid 1980s. I have written extensively about it. Google hits 910 for "Keith Henson" memetics OR meme OR memes and some of those are to hard copy publications.


 * For example (paraphrasing the above statement):


 * H. KEITH HENSON: A meme survives in the world because people pass it on to other people, either vertically to the next generation, or horizontally to our fellows. This process is analogous to the way willow genes cause willow trees to spread them, or perhaps closer to the way cold viruses make us sneeze and spread them.


 * http://pbrowning.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html


 * I am fairly sure this is from a published article, but not sure which one it was. Ah, Google is your friend, it was in "Memes Meta-Memes and Politics," originally written for _Reason_ rejected and hard copy published after circulating on the net for years.


 * I will consider taking the tags off the meme article. It is a real temptation to rewrite the whole thing, it's really a very simple topic, but being an expert with opinions about memes and memetics makes me subject to being attacked by wiki lawyers on COI. Keith Henson 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations in policy
Hi Pixelface,

I just reverted a few changes you made to WP:SPOILER (although I left in your first change, the second one removed a fair bit of content that should be discussed before it's taken out), and I noticed that the edit summaries of the changes I reverted noted a lack of citations as being the reason behind the deletions.

Although WP:NOR and WP:V are applied rigorously to articles, policies and guidelines are basically just interpretations of the five pillars that are agreed on by the community. As such, there is nothing to cite-- tags are used solely to provide footnotes and other comments. In other words, since there's nothing to cite, a lack of citations doesn't justify removal of content.

Just wanted to clear this up in case you were confused. Thanks! --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 13:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rod of Asclepius & Caduceus
With regard to the use of caduceus for medical applications, it seems that you have now satisfied yourself that this is an incorrect usage (albeit common in the US), If you want any further info on this, please feel free to give me a shout.

Sadly, the confusion has been well and truly created now, but it is largely restricted to the US, with the exception of its use in some movies, video games etc. which are exported worldwide.

Owain.davies (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Milomedes
I've posted a response here. The problem is not having enough evidence - it's about having too much. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pandora tomorrow xbx.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pandora tomorrow xbx.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Steve T • C 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Cross-posted:


 * No, Pixelface, I'm sorry. There were valid process complaints against JzG -- he did have prior involvement (this received much discussion), and he did close a little early (this received less discussion, but was noted.)  I don't like the way JzG handled this, personally, and I don't like past cases where he has behaved similarly either.  I, however, am constrained in closing to abide by consensus.  The deletion supporters at the debate discussed JzG directly, and uniformly came to the conclusion that his process-defects shouldn't overturn the result, which they judged proper.  The deletion supporters also addressed the template directly, arguing that it was unencyclopedic, having a net negative effect on the project.  The deletion supporters also had numerical supremacy, a factor which is not determinative or conclusive alone, but can weigh heavily in certain circumstances.


 * The deletion opponents largely didn't address the merits of the template itself, a key oversight on their part. They focused instead on past history (the depopulation of the category, which is not a subject for deletion review -- ArbCom saw that case, and rejected it), together with JzG's problematic conduct.  Again, personally, I'm sympathetic.  JzG was the wrong person to close that debate, in my personal opinion, and was being provocative in doing so.  As an impartial closer, however, I cannot ignore that a sizable majority met that argument head on with a rejoinder of "small defect, right result", an argument permitted under WP:NOT a bureaucracy.  I also cannot ignore that deletion supporters were alone in reaching the issue of the merits of the template, and that their arguments, unrebutted, where convincing.  By the argument and by the numbers, deletion supporters succeeded despite JzG.  His involvement was a regrettable error, judged by consensus to have been insignificant in reaching the right result.  Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest reply


 * You may find it useful to consult the comments I made at Ned Scott's talk, also, as they address some of the issues you raise, but I'll summarize here. In closing a DRV, while I am free to examine the XfD as a matter of record, I may not make independent judgments about the XfD.  I must weigh consensus at the DRV.  The numerical strength of factions at the original XfD is not my concern, at least not directly.  I care -- and I am tasked to evaluate -- what commenters at the DRV think about the XfD, and may take note of the numerical strength at DRV as part of my analysis, though never the whole of it.  If commenters at the DRV do not address the "numbers at XfD" question -- and at the DRV, they largely did not -- it will not factor heavily in my decision.


 * Ned's comments made me aware of JoshuaZ' aborted closure this morning. I do not know exactly why he rescinded his close (or how he came to his judgment, for that matter), but his closure and his choice to rescind it are his responsibilities, not mine.  I respect his judgment generally; but, I am much more experienced in closing DRVs than he is, and I will say that I do not think his closing remarks were wise in this case.  Process-defects are important, but one must always consider how important each particular defect is under each given set of circumstances: as I have said, I believe this DRV consensus held the defects insufficiently harmful to merit overturning the result. JoshuaZ' aborted closure did not address this point.


 * Your last question is easy to answer. There are three grounds widely considered appropriate for overturning an XfD at DRV: 1.) Process defects (if they are found to be sufficiently grave); 2.) New information, either in the form of new reliable sources, novel arguments unheard at the XfD, or obvious change of circumstance; 3.) (used much less often, but still successful sometimes) New participants in a discussion, eg. if a WikiProject vital to the maintenance of an article comes forward to demand a rehearing, having not known of the prior debate.  (This ground is not for use by discontented individuals, but rather by recognized wiki-groups.)


 * I can understand your confusion over the limits of the general rule, "DRV is not AfD Round 2." You are right to avoid rehashing the details of arguments from the XfD. However, WP is not a bureaucracy: ultimately, everyone is interested in doing what benefits the encyclopedia the most.  For this reason, arguments on the basic merits are often heard.  Do not just restate what was said at the XfD; rather, reach to the heart of the question, and explain why the content under dispute benefits the encyclopedia.  A good DRV closer will always hear those arguments, and the rule against re-arguing an AfD does not apply to them.  "DRV is not AfD, Round 2" is more a stricture for inexperienced users, who might get distracted by WP:ILIKEIT and other likely dead-ends.  Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A comment you made at Deletion Review
I responded on my talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sorry
Hey, no problem. Despite our differing viewpoints, throughout all of this there has been no doubt whatsoever in my mind that you have the best interests of the 'pedia, and its readers, at heart. Plus, I should have been more civil to you too; some of my edit summaries when I initially reverted you were out of line, and my response to your point about "anti-American bias" was also out of proportion; to someone unaware of the loose guidelines governing film ratings, I can easily see how my edit summary might looked like I was exercising exactly that, and I apologise.

The issue regarding spoilers is one which is sure to crop up again and again, as indeed it has throughout Wikipedia's history. While I remain convinced the warnings are unnecessary, I am not a stubborn person. If an argument is made which one day convinces me otherwise, I will not refuse to let it inform my opinion, and should we still end up disagreeing, I will respond to you with civility and good humour. Best regards, and happy editing. Steve T • C 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER
Pixel, it should be obvious to you by now that there is no community support for the idea of preceding the plot summary with critic-sourced spoiler warnings. You fought the good fight, but the consensus of editors is overwhelmingly against it.

No one is saying that properly sourced analysis cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. To the contrary, it is our shared objective. Your recent additions to Million Dollar Baby are an excellent example of how this should be done. The ongoing dispute is about the placement of that information, and practically everyone agrees that critic-sourced spoiler warnings are not part of the plot summary. The reason is simple: that information does not summarize the plot; it summarizes people's reaction to the plot. Surely you can see the difference?

I am not an administrator, but I think you are teetering perilously close to a block. If you revert WP:SPOILER again today, you will have violated WP:3RR. If you want to have a long and happy career on Wikipedia, you need to recognize when consensus is against you, as it obviously is in this case. Your idea of mixing critic-sourced opinions and plot summary information has not been well received. You can keep suggesting it, with (likely) the same hostile response. Or, you can move on. Your choice. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Now you are vandalising Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Everyone agrees that articles on fictional subjects may contain plot summaries, with the work itself as the source. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied on my talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, I replied on my talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts vis-a-vis the Plot/Spoiler topic. Although I don't agree with you (or am even sure I fully understand your goal), it did result in attention on some key issues with Million Dollar Baby. The end-twist and euthanasia elements of the film and the challenges they gave to reviewers are notable enough to address in the Response section of the article. Thanks for your perseverence. Jim Dunning | talk  22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your recent message. I replied on my talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied once again on my talk page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary writing
Can I ask why you think plot summaries are original research? Sources, whether primary or secondary, are rewritten by editors to present on Wikipedia articles. It's a matter of reviewing the new content to ensure its neutral presentation. If no personal writing based on citations was permitted on Wikipedia, the only thing we could do is quote. Writing a plot summary would be similar to repeating in a more concise fashion literature about a real-world topic. Have you not seen that even recent Featured and Good Articles about films have plot summaries accepted? Please explain your thought process -- while I admire what you've done for the Critical reaction sections of film articles, I'm concerned about your attitude when it comes to discussing different aspects of Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, that was probably the largest comment I've ever received on my talk page! :) I have a few questions for clarification about what you've said:
 * Why would the film itself be considered unpublished, while a screenplay of this film be acceptable? Both are presentations of the story in different media.
 * Why can't the plot summary of a film be inherently cited? Information needed to verify the content of the plot summary is in both the Infobox Film template and the lead section -- year, genre, director, stars.  This would be in opposition to a film's producer citing the budget to be $75 million in the Los Angeles Times, not an item that is clearly verifiable.
 * What is your impression of WP:PSTS that says to "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge", while citing "artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" later?
 * In regard to derivative work, I believe that's why we have a word limit for the plot summary. I don't believe the limit is unreasonable, though I wouldn't oppose a further reduction.  I do my best to write short plot summaries.
 * Lastly, what is your ideal writing of a plot summary (side-stepping the spoiler business, if you don't mind)?
 * Let me know if there's any points I've overlooked; I've tried to focus the discussion on the more relevant points. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I suppose you could say films are published, although that term usually refers to text. The screenplay is text. A film is usually audio and video with no text. I suppose you could say subtitles are published, but the film is not a third-party source. The policy on verifiability says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If a plot summary is unsourced, and the film does not contain the plot summary text, the film is not the true source of the plot summary. Personal observations by editors are the true source of the plot summary, and personal observations by editors don't belong in articles. I think the description of the plot has to be previously published, outside of Wikipedia.
 * 2) Many editors say that the film is inherently cited when it comes to plot summaries. But you could say the same about virtually any article on Wikipedia. I could go to the MS Explorer article and write my personal observations of the ship, but unless those observations have been previously published, they don't really belong in the article. I think the Infobox and the lead section in film articles should cite sources too. Information in the Infobox doesn't really support text in a plot summary.
 * 3) I agree with some parts of WP:PSTS, but that section is currently under debate at WT:NOR. I think if a reader has to watch a film to verify an article, that means they would need specialist knowledge. A reader shouldn't have to watch a film to verify content in an article, especially if that film is relatively new. There should be plenty of reliable sources that contain a description of the plot. I think descriptive claims are still original research if those claims haven't been previously published outside Wikipedia.
 * 4) Many editors do set a word limit on plot summaries. Many films are copyrighted and plot summaries can only be provided under a claim of fair use. If an editor retells a story and offers no analysis, it may be a derivative work. The only way to include analysis in an article is to cite reliable sources that have made that analysis. So an unsourced plot summary is likely original research, and likely a derivative work.
 * 5) I think an ideal plot summary cites secondary sources that have described a film, and contains no additional personal observations by editors. Readers need to be able to see that someone else has already said something. Readers need to be able to see that statements have been previously published.

WP:OR says a "novel narrative" is original research. If an editor retells a story in their own words, is that not a novel narrative? I'm not going to go around and remove every unsourced plot summary I see. But I think plot summaries really should cite secondary sources and be written from those sources. Editors should be given time to provide citations, but if other editors are acting rude &mdash; like at the Million Dollar Baby article &mdash; I see no reason to be lenient. I'll just remove the unsourced plot summary on sight. If editors are removing or moving cited spoiler warnings, they better cite a reliable secondary source for any spoilers the article contains. --Pixelface (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that you and I are going to change each other's minds about this issue. I disagree that plot summaries are original research as long as the coverage is descriptive; all editors write their own prose based on how they look at sources, may they be primary or secondary.  I don't think specialist knowledge is necessary to watch a film -- like with other sources, it takes comprehension and summarization.  Also, I don't think that writing about one's experience on the MS Explorer is accurate -- watching a film to comprehend the plot summary is on par with buying a book that is cited in the article, where taking a trip on the MS Explorer isn't realistic.  I understand what your arguments are, but I am not in agreement with them.  The current setup is reasonable, and I see your suggested implementation as too unreasonable.  There are no serious qualms about the existing setup; good faith has to be assumed about a contribution, and if it is dubious, verification is plausible to seek.  Whenever I add cited information from an offline print source, I've thought that it would be easy to introduce false information under that guise.  It's the risk that Wikipedia runs in general, not just for plot summaries.  As for the conduct of other editors toward you, I can't speak for them other than to say that pseudonyms can inappropriately loosen the tongue.  I may not agree with you on issues like this and spoilers, but I do my best to be accepting of differing perspectives.  Ultimately, editors will just have different ideas of how Wikipedia should function, and true consensus is impossible to achieve with so many perspectives.  I'm not going to be involved in the Million Dollar Baby discussion any further, but I hope that you don't let such discussions frustrate you to a point where we'd need to find a new editor to add these Critical reaction sections. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You added the sections for the films Eastern Promises and The Brave One, right? I guess in comparison to the lack of substance that these articles had, the reception detail struck some as overwhelming.  I don't know if you still flesh out reviews after these protests, as I've only seen box office/rating content added by you these days.  If you ever revisit the approach of fuller critical reaction sections, I'd suggest trying to find specific criticisms (positive or negative) about the film that could be conveyed in prose.  From what I've seen, some film critics can write in flamboyant styles, especially when they desire to trash a loathsome film.  I don't consider myself the best writer of such sections as I've found it hard to make them more than just a harvest of quotes.  My last attempt was Surf Ninjas, but eh... it's a challenge to rewrite these opinions for an encyclopedia.  Any thoughts about how to approach thme better? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling you missed my comment. :) I've cited Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic because they've seemed reputable in their ratings.  I've seen the features at RT posted elsewhere, such as the best films for the first half of 2007 on CNN (Ratatouille was at the top, if you were curious).  Presenting the ratings has always been a challenge, though... I've probably written a half dozen different methods of showing that information.  I agree with your assessment, though, that simplifying the presentation works best.  I've probably felt compelled lately to elaborate more on what are these websites, which leads to more detail than necessary.  Also, you're right about choosing the appropriate reviews -- that's a damned challenge to do.  I've generally stuck to coverage from mainstream media outlets because their circulation is strong and their critics are more professional than The Incredible Movie Review Blog of Christopher the Cinephile.  If you include a review, do you think it's relevant to quote opinions that don't show any immediate substance like, "I'd rather be kicked in the nuts than have seen this film" or "You'll walk out of the theater with a big smile on your face"?  Silly examples, I know, but hopefully you know what I mean. :-P  I've been developing Fight Club (film) and specifically its critical reaction section, and I'm trying to see if all perspectives can be presented fully.  That's the problem with such sections... I feel that there's so much editorial discretion to apply.  I've enjoyed writing about the background of films more -- I've milked sources for all they're worth as it's unlikely to overdo it (or know when you're overdoing it).  Critical reaction, though... there's a ridiculous amount of reviews out there, and obviously they can't all be implemented.  How much relevance do you think nationality should play into it, depending on the nationality of the film itself?  Outside of American reviews, the most common non-American reviews are from the UK and from Australia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler archive
A full copy of the page as it stands is now at /Spoiler dump for you. I am resetting the archive period to something reasonable. You can use the archives instead of rendering the talk page unusable while you conduct your research. Note that nobody involved in the spoiler debate is actually running for arbcom anyway. Phil Sandifer 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use the dispute resolution process
In case you've missed it, I've commented a number of times on your repeated allegations of misconduct. Such allegations if not resolved correctly poison the atmosphere of debate. For that purpose we have a dispute resolution process. I have asked you to use the proper process and I again urge you to do so now. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that plea. With the difference that, coming from me, you might actually believe that I mean it.  You and your cohort clearly have got a bug up your bum in a serious way.  I'm not going to make any statements about my opinion of the merit of the complaint, but the manner in which it is being carried forward right now is going to come to no good.  For historical interest, look up User:Karmafist to see where "fighting the good fight" leads.  Because right now, every time Tony asks you,or any other spoiler soviet, to use DR and you fail to do so he's "winning" no matter how wrong he is.  (Not saying he is wrong, just that he's playing by the rules.)


 * I do understand that there is frustration with the current system: TFD, DRV, and RFArb have all failed to address the "fundamental wrongs" you perceive in this case. But I'm more than happy to lend support in framing your concerns in a way that will be "colouring within the lines" of dispute resolution.  I'm too lazy to dig up a million diffs, but if you can rally round the flag, I'll assist in putting it together in a way that has a much higher likelihood of achieving a positive outcome.


 * Can’t guarantee it will be seen as positive by you but at least it will have been given a shot. Use my e-mail if you don't want to reply on-wiki.


 * CygnetSaIad (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a request for comment concerning the spoiler guideline. I've discussed some issues with Tony Sidaway on his talk page and on the talk page of the spoiler guideline. Is discussion on talk pages not one of the steps in dispute resolution? It should be noted that previous attempts at dispute resolution were tried by others: a mediation case, and a request for arbitration. Thank you for your support. I haven't read Tony Sidaway's reply on his talk page yet, but I just noticed it and I will read that now. --Pixelface (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to say thanks for taking your grievance to my talk page where it belongs in the first instance. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD
Yes, I'd say I was aware of TfD prior to May 15, 2007:. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Woa, you've broken my browser, man! When I click on "Older revision", nothing happens.  Don't try your Jedi mind tricks on me! --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
There exist a variety of ways to archive a page, that I believe to be interchangeable. Where it is important for discussions to be archived rather than deleted, it is not really important which particular method is used for the archiving.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A word of warning
Despite several warnings, you persist in incivility, personal attacks, and general sniping at users who do not share your opinion. If you do this again, you will be blocked from editing. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIV and WP:NPA.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Overall, your recent behavior has consisted of a lot of grumbling, rhetorical questions, implying other people don't understand things, accusing them of guilty conscience, and so on and so forth. I'm reasonably sure you are aware of that. This isn't helping anybody, least of all yourself, and only breeds an atmosphere of negativity. Basically, at this point, you have three options: (1) stop complaining and do something about it; I've provided several suggestions how; (2) stop complaining and drop the issue; or (3) keep up your negative behavior and end up blocked. Your choice, really.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you see yourself as fighting the "good fight", and you may very well be right about Spoilers and Plot Summary sources, but now you are just creating an unproductive atmosphere, as well as the perception of being Quixotic (or worse). No matter how "right" you are (or may later be proved to be), WP works thanks to consensus. For days now you have stated your perspective and those who differ with it have stated theirs: it is clear your position on these subjects is outnumbered. It loses. That's (WP) life. Deal with it. And move on. I've been there a number of times.

Jim Dunning | talk  17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made your points. No new arguments have been stated in days on either sides of the questions, and it is only your persistence that drags these dreary discussions out. I suggest you table them for some future time and focus your editing efforts elsewhere. Unfortunately, your refusal to wait for another opportunity is &mdash; at the least &mdash; annoying to your fellow editors, and &mdash; at worst &mdash; bordering on harassment. I don't know what you do in "real life", but I have precious little time to spend on WP that I'd rather it be spent on articles rather than Talk space. I'm sure if you step back a bit, you'll find you feel the same way.


 * Yes, of course you've been guilty of personal attacks. In your comments on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler (and occasionally other pages), you repeatedly accuse other editors and admins of "bad behavior". It is not merely that you're saying, "I have a different vision of the encyclopedia than you." Rather, you're accusing them of fundamentally abusing policy and process, which are very different things. Allegations of misconduct need to be dropped, or taken to a forum capable of dealing with them, where you will either win or lose. Comments on individual talk pages need to be written on the premise that other participants have the same good-faith intentions that you do. Marc Shepherd (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No evidence has been provided to me that shows I have made any personal attacks. Accusing me of making personal attacks without any evidence is a personal attack on me and I don't appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler template comment at User_talk:JzG
Your comment on User_talk:JzG regarding the closure of the Spoiler template discussion has been removed because JzG doesn't much like anyone daring to ask him anything about his actions, and a reply can be found in his history (here). violet/riga (t) 11:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not interested
You've made it abundantly clear that your own view is the only one you'll accept, so further dialogue is pointless. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protect
I requested page protection because there was an edit war over the page. I didn't protect the page myself because I wanted a second opinion on that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you choose to participate
I've created User talk:CygnetSaIad/Requests for arbitration/Long term disruption/Workshop. This way, things can finally be laid to rest, one way or another. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom vote
I saw your Giano II vote. Since we know each other, I thought you would be interested that I have provided in my vote #296, a public logic enabling uncertain opposes/others to switch to "some message only". (Please reply here if desired) Milo 06:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Current fiction
I stepped away from the computer to run an errand, and I realized that I needed to put out more notifications. I was going to ask what other places to contact, so I appreciate the laundry list. :) However, I wasn't sure about specific editor contacting -- that seemed like canvassing, as opposed to the widespread notifications of communal pages.  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you're on top of it, haha. I'll do Books, TV, and Video Games. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I apologize for my hardass tone in all this. I tend to get this way when I seek a certain resolution.  I really am curious to see the outcome, as I don't know if JzG's assessment was correct or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically which individual editors from that particular TFD are to be contacted? It seems to be crossing into canvassing territory to be contacting each one that's indirectly related -- where is the line drawn in finding everyone on Wikipedia that has opposed or approved of the template? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I hesitate to follow your advice because then I'd be contacting specific editors who share a specific stance regarding the template. The notifications on the communal talk pages seem enough to avoid bias one way or another.  Of course, I'm biased for deletion, but your arguments seem to show a bias to keep based on JzG's endorsement.  So I'd rather stick to notifying communal pages -- if you know of other ones to be contacted, feel free to share them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the amount of names involved with that TFD, I don't think that's an appropriate move. I don't believe it's at all been customary to bring new XFDs to the attention of people involved in the previous XFDs of the item.  Like I said, informing communal talk pages are fair enough and also generally relevant as these WikiProjects are the ones likely to utilize or not utilize such a template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding current fiction to articles that don't meet the criteria. I'm come across many that you've tagged that don't meet the criteria at all. Many of these articles do NOT lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, do NOT contain speculation, and do NOT focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of the film. Chaz Beckett 12:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Which articles don't meet the criteria? The criteria is recently released fictional works. --Pixelface (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't simply that a work was recenetly released, and you know this. The article should also display problems such lacking a real-world perspective and critical commentary, and focusing primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of the film. See I Am Legend (film)? for an example of an article that you doesn't need to be tagged. Chaz Beckett 12:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The criteria has always been recently released fictional works. The wording was recently changed to mention real-world perspective and critical commentary. I do not endorse that wording. The film I Am Legend was recently released, and the I Am Legend (film) article documents the film, so I think the current fiction tag applies. I tagged 13 articles about films and 9 articles about videogames and those films and videogames were all recently released within the past month. --Pixelface (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tags (all tags, not just this one) are used to inform readers there are problems they should be aware of, such as an article that isn't properly developed. When articles exhibit the issues I described above, this tag might be useful (though a general cleanup tag would probably work just as well). Slapping a tag on a well-written article for the mere fact that it's release date is in close proximity doesn't make sense and isn't how tags are used. Chaz Beckett 12:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Templates are used whenever an editor doesn't want to copy and paste long material onto multiple pages. The template Infobox Film does not inform readers there are problems they should be aware of. When the current fiction template was created, it looked like this. The criteria has always been articles on recently released fictional works. I believe I have applied the tag correctly and I believe you have reverted my edits because you disagree with the template's current wording. If you don't like how it's currently worded, you're free to edit Template:Current fiction. --Pixelface (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're referring to templates in general, I'm referring to tags in particular, which is what Current fiction is. I reviewed each article you tagged and reverted where the tag did not apply. Note that there are multiple articles where I left the tag because the article displayed one or more of the issues described in the tag. Chaz Beckett 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry christmas/Happpy holidays


is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

From Johnny542
Hey man, why do you want to merge this page? It already has a list of the DBZ movies in one page so whats the point. It will be better just to keep it the way it is. Johnny542 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete notices
A tag has been placed on, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how Template:Recent film? is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Template:Recent film? saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Chaz Beckett 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how Template:Recent book is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Template:Recent book saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Chaz Beckett 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning: no personal attacks; assume good faith
Please do not attack other editors, and assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Your recent posts to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents appear to be misrepresenting the actions and motives of other editors in an attempt to discredit them. If you continue with this behaviour, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I have misrepresented the actions and motives of other editors as you . I have not made any personal attacks at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you have a question about anything in that thread, you are free to ask me. I would appreciate it if you could tell me what I said that you consider a personal attack. --Pixelface (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually you do have a history of making personal attacks for which you have been warned in the recent past .  That's probably a sign that you're taking this matter too personally.  I think you're misreading David's comments, though not deliberately, and I hope you'll soon accept that this is so. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of making personal attacks without any evidence is a personal attack in itself. Please provide some diffs. --Pixelface (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked per the consensus and reasons presented at AN/I. John Reaves 18:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked - a sizable group on the discussion felt the block was an excessive step. I will note, however, that your behaviour was far from ideal - I think you got a bit carried away defending your point of view and once it got to a certain point you should have dropped it (the time-worn cliché "agree to disagree" applies). Be prepared for the fact that those who feel your actions in the AN/I and over time are disruptive have the option of initiating, and may well initiate, a request for comment on your conduct. Orderinchaos 07:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Games

 * Pixelface, DO NOT continue to play games with maintenance tag messages by changing the content whenever another editor disagrees with an edit of yours. This is tiresome and my next move will be to discuss this at a request for comment. I am referring to these two edits: &

Jim Dunning | talk  23:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you.


 * Why did you leave this comment in this section? I'm not playing any games with maintenance tags. The template current product has existed since September and the template recent film is perfectly in line with that. The template recent film is meant to be a counterpart to future film. The recent I made to recent film included text from the current product template. The recent film template is meant to notify readers that an article may change rapidly and is meant encourage editors to expand articles, like other temporal templates. You're free to make a request for comment. I don't appreciate your rude messages to me. You said my actions have been "bordering on harassment" and questioned what I do in "real life" and accused me of "playing games." I don't think your messages to me have been civil. If you have some sincere criticism of the recent film template, you're welcome to express it at it's TFD. Frankly I'm perplexed that ChazBeckett thinks it's a recreation of previously deleted material. I don't see how Liquidfinale can  I Am Legend is not a recent film &mdash; it was released 12 days ago. --Pixelface (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read what I wrote. Both there and on the talk page. It's a recent film, yes, but if the sole purpose of the tag is to inform readers that the article is about a recent film, then it is unnecessary. You may as well tell them "you are reading an article". However, if the purpose of the tag is to inform readers that the article is about a recent film and therefore it may not be up to scratch, may be subject to change, or lack information, then for this particular article it is also unnecessary, as the article does not now meet any of those criteria. Best regards, Steve  T • C 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This, I hope, is the last time I explain this: the template's mesage is its purpose. You placed a maintenance tag on I Am Legend that notified readers and editors that it is "Recent Fiction" and "Some information may change rapidly as more facts become known." Liquidfinale removed the tag saying the notice did not apply to the article since its content has been stable. I concurred on the article's Talk page. You then modified the tag's content by adding "You can help by expanding this article" to its message and then replaced the tag on the IAL article with an Edit Summary that only says, "re-added recent film tag. this is a recent film". No mention that you changed the template's message. Interesting. I question the action's intent when you quietly change the message's content without acknowledging it. I will say one last time, the purpose of the tag is not just contained in its nmae, but in its consistent message.

Jim Dunning | talk  02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also not going to discuss this on the template's deletion page since you keep changing its purpose. Which version would I discuss? On which day? On which hour?


 * I have on your talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I second Jim's comments. Your actions are approaching disruption. Please stop adding the recent film and book tags, at least until the TfD is closed. Chaz Beckett 02:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think removing a template from every page while a TFD is taking place is disruptive. I won't add any more recent film tags to articles while the TFD is taking place. And I hope you will not remove any. I'm flabbergasted you have brought spoiler warnings into this. --Pixelface (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When did I bring spoiler warning into this? Diffs please. Chaz Beckett 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you haven't. I was wrong about that. I have stricken that comment above. Many people at the TFD have, but the template has nothing to do with spoiler warnings. --Pixelface (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault
Hi Pixelface,

I've made some comments on your rewrite of the Mission 2 paragrah. Hope they are useful, Merry Christams and a Happy New Year!!!

--Hornet94 (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

IP autoblock
{unblock|It has been 24 hours and my block has expired but my IP is still autoblocked for 4 more hours. I am requesting the autoblock of my IP be lifted. Thank you.}

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:


 * 1) If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in. Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are. If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
 * 2) Try to [ edit the Sandbox].
 * 3) If you are still blocked, copy the {&#123;unblock-auto&#124;...&#125;} code generated for you under the " IP blocked? " section.
 * 4) Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Sandstein (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to publish my IP on this talk page. I suppose I can log out, go to my IP talk page and put the autoblock template there, but it will appear in the Recent Changes list and could still be traced to me. I think I can wait the 4 hours. I don't know why I would be blocked for 24 hours and my IP autoblocked for 28 hours. Perhaps John Reaves needs to be contacted and informed that in the future he should set the IP autoblock for the same time period as the block. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IP autoblocks don't work like that - that's why they're auto-blocks, i.e. automatic. If you're unblocked but your IP is blocked, you should ask any contactable admin you'd trust knowing your IP and they should be able to fix the autoblock - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. --Pixelface (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One other alternative failing that is to do the subst:unblock auto code, hit "show preview" instead of "save", copy the code and send it to an admin. The admin will see the IP address but it won't be published on your talk page. Another way is if you can send the 6-digit autoblock code. Orderinchaos 09:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll try my best so I won't ever have to use that information :) --Pixelface (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I seem to remember reading about a 31 hour block, used because of possible time zone differences, and they want to be sure people are blocked for a full day of their time. Or something. ? Melodia Chaconne ? (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)



is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. 

is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

CfD nomination of Category:Recent films
I have nominated recent films for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Recent books
I have nominated recent books for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolve vs. Uncivility
Pixelface, I apologize if my resolve and frustration come across as lack of WP civility. I have no personal animosity toward you and appreciate the efforts you put into improving articles. I was, however, very frustrated by your earlier actions when you added a tag to IAL that communicates one message, and then you change significantly that message after two editors disagree with the message's claim and re-add the tag to the article without explaining what you've done. I do not know you personally and have no way of discerning your true motives, but we as WP editors have only edit actions and communications (such as Edit Summaries and Talk threads) to guide us as we respond and react to each other. Your actions regarding the Recent film template are at best confusing, at the least counter-collaborative. I consider template tags very important and read the messages they declare and even their Talk pages before I use them or react to them. I take them seriously. In this case you are on what appears to be a crusade to put the words "recent fiction" (or "film" or "book", etc.) on certain articles. Your purpose, beyond those words, is unclear; very many editors are confused about your intentions, since the messages (when there is one) that accompanies the notices keep changing. The notice content itself appears to you to be fungible as long as the word "recent" is appended to the article.

You should have solicited input and gained consensus on the template purpose and wording before applying it wholesale. All of the post-implementation discussion that has occurred would have taken place up front and possibly resulted in a useful and accepted template. Certainly, after the Recent fiction template failed, you should have gone the collaboration and consensus route on the other templates you created. Again, we can't know your motives, but your actions sometimes come across antagonistically to other editors, and the creation and implementation of Recent film and Recent book immediately after clear disagreement with the fiction template appeared uncivil to more than a few. Similarly, by changing the purpose of the recent films template and its application to IAL without clear reason may have appeared deceptive or even disruptive.

You make many valuable and significant contributions to articles and I want you to continue to do so. WP is a world of consensus and collaboration, one that is not suitable or desirable to all. Dedication to a mission is laudable and requisite, but we often find timing and method are key to accomplishing minority goals. There are things I chaff at in WP, but, on the whole, I find many attractive and rewarding features, so I stay. I recognize that I must obtain the respect and cooperation of my fellow editors to work effectively on this project, so I work within the system (aaarrrgghhh! Did I actually just say that?!?!).

Again, I have no antipathy toward you, and I'm sorry if my actions and statements disagreeing with your viewpoints and actions appeared personal. They are not. Jim Dunning | talk  14:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You told me you have precious little time to spend on WP, so I'll try and keep this short. Two editors didn't like the message so I changed it. If you want an explanation, you're free to ask me. You're right, you have no way of discerning my true motives &mdash; if you don't ask me first. I'm not on a crusade. I thought the template would be helpful but obviously many people do not. That's fine with me.


 * Editors don't need consensus before they create a template. I suppose I could have solicited input from various WikiProjects but I didn't think about it at the time. Any editor can change the wording of any template if it's unprotected. I put the template on a few articles. I don't think there was anything wrong with that, but obviously ChazBeckett disagreed. I three templates during the TFD for current fiction. That template had many flaws, but also some benefits I think and I thought those 3 templates would be useful. I did not create them to get around the deletion of the current fiction template. I thought they were a better idea. I fully expect the third template I mentioned to be nominated for deletion soon as well; ChazBeckett seems to have missed it earlier.


 * When I created the recent film template, I tried to incorporate wording from future film. When editors didn't like the recent film tag in the I Am Legend (film) article, I tried to incorporate wording from the current product template. I was not trying to be disruptive, but I suppose my actions looked that way to a few editors.


 * Thank you for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So I have to ask you, what was the purpose of the recent film template? What purpose was it to serve?


 * The purpose of the recent film template was to inform readers that an article is about a film that had been recently released, much like recent death informs readers than an article is about a person who has recently died. The template puts film articles into Category:Recent films and that category is automatically removed when the template is removed. Editors could then go to Category:Recent films and see what other articles they could work on, articles that many websurfers look for. My first revision of the recent film template had wording based on the future film template, that the content of the article may change rapidly &mash; something I've witnessed myself. I hoped that when future film was removed from an article, recent film would be put in its place for about 4 weeks (or however long editors decided). My second revision to the template included wording from the current product template, encouraging readers to expand the film article, as many articles film articles need attention right after the film was been released. Encouraging editors to expand the article was probably a poor message for the I Am Legend (film) article because it's pretty well developed. My third revision to the template left pretty much just a link to Category:Recent films, since editors did not like the previous wording. But it looks like recent film and Category:Recent films will be deleted anyway, so yeah. --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex
Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:
 * 1) Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export.  For the second, go here .  (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.)  Do whatever Ye want for the third.
 * 2) Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad.  Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.”  For “Save as type,” select “All Files.”  For “File name,” input “ ” and save It.  Leave the Window open.
 * 3) Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
 * 4) Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear.  Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It.  Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window.  Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
 * 5) Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File.  At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend!  However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet.  Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked.  Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window.  Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There.  Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex.  Paste   at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done!  Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop it
I have every right to choose to stop having a discussion with you and to archive items from my talk page, so stop undoing my archiving of the discussion. I'm done with it. Collectonian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can revert your talk page as many times as you want. If you want to make false claims in CFD, go ahead. I would just like a straight answer from you. You me "rabid" is not exactly civil. If you can't give me a straight answer, fine. I hope you don't  in all your CFD nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop the personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to Collectonian? --Pixelface (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you, probably. Accusations of lying, name-calling, bad signs and a good sign that you both need to step back and think carefully. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)