User talk:The Man in Question/MiQ's archives III

Your edits
Why are you adding commas after lifespans in biographies? That makes the sentences grammatically incorrect. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I'm not a grammar professional. That seems to make the sentence grammatically incorrect. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I only add it because of the "jr." The sentence "John Jones, Jr., is a man" is correct; "John Jones, Jr. is a man" is incorrect. The same goes for things like Ph.D., OBE, etc. Otherwise there should be no comma, of course. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll change it back. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force
Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code:

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Public weal


The article Public weal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This page is a mix of an article and a disambiguation. Insofar as it is an article it merely defines a common term and belongs in the Wiktionary (it is also mistaken when it comes to the meaning of republic and the colloquial use of commonwealth).  Insofar as it is a disambiguation page, it does not disambiguate pages that might be mistaken for one another.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  RJC  TalkContribs 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing edit summary
It would have been jolly if you could have put an edit summary on your 3 recent edits at Wooden horse. Cheers Law Lord (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Vitas
Greetings. Good work on the Vitas article. As I'm sure you've noticed (but were probably too polite to say) it's messy, so it's nice to see some intelligent copy-editing.

I have, however, undone your changes identifying the song commonly known as Opera #2 as Opera No.1. I'm sure you had good reason to believe this. Let me guess: iTunes, right? You'd think it would be a reliable source as to the titles of the songs it's selling? Well, iTunes got it wrong, and this error may have spread virally.

I have also explained this on the Vitas talk page. Opera #2 is the song which was released as a single in early 2001, accompanied by the video (Dec 2000) in which Vitas has gills, plays the accordion naked and breaks glass with his voice. This single became a huge hit, winning the Russian prize for best-selling single in 3 consecutive years (as mentioned in the article). I have this song on Vitas' Philosophy of Miracle album (which also includes Opera #1), Myth of the Shaking Soul Voice DVD and Audio Visual Connect CD + DVD boxed set, and I've also seen many live performances of it on YouTube and Vitas' own website. The type of scarf he wears in the video is now known as an "Opera #2 scarf" (some of these were given away as competition prizes) and if Vitas puts on that scarf at a concert it elicits a huge cheer because it announces the song he's about to sing. It is definitely Opera #2.

This mislabelling fiasco, alas, typifies the trials and tribulations of working on the Vitas article. It is undoubtedly the most frustrating, difficult, headache-inducing Wikipedia article to which I have contributed. Most of the English-language source material available on the subject is badly translated, contradictory, copied from Wikipedia or some combination of the above.

I have no particular preference as to whether the title is given as Opera #2 or Opera No.2: either English version is acceptable. It may be worth noting that both the single and the Russian album on which it appears use the Russian title Опера #2, and the Myth of the Shaking Soul Voice DVD lists the title in English as Opera #2; however, the Audio Visual Connect CD + DVD lists it as Opera No 2, and the discography on Vitas' official website lists the single as Опера №2 in Russian and Opera #2 in English! Whichever version is used it's probably best to mention the alternative the first time the song is mentioned in the article.

I noticed also that you changed the bit about the Opera #2 video having been forwarded frequently via the internet to "Vitas' 2000 song "Opera No. 2"" etc. The statement about its proliferation is of course true of both the song and the video. However, your edit leaves a small issue: given that the video was published in 2000 but the single was released in 2001 (as was the album on which it features), which year (if either) should be given for the song?

I see you've also changed the link to a live performance of Opera #2 rather than the music video, though it is still a video hosted on YouTube. If you don't mind my asking, did you change it for copyright reasons or was there some other reason you considered the live version more suitable than the video? I don't particularly have a problem with this; I just wondered why.

Hmmm... I wonder how many Redirect pages I should make when I eventually get round to writing an article about Opera #2/ Opera 2/ Opera No. 2/ Opera No 2... etc? I think you covered most of the variant spellings for Vitas' name, which is an impressive task!

All the best,

Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha. Big deal, all this? I changed the link because (and I admit this is subjective) the Vitas video to which I personally have been virally subjected is the live one. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Public weal
I have nominated Public weal, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Public weal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  RJC  TalkContribs 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice regarding Public weal
Hello. I have again edited the page Public weal; you may want to check out the new version. Per WP:MOSDAB, there should be only one link per bullet point on a disambiguation page.

Also, the Oxford English Dictionary (2009 draft revision) says that public weal is obsolete; Meriam-Webster's 10th Collegiate says that weal in the sense of "body politic" is obsolete, but also defines weal as "a sound, healthy, or prosperous state". MW10 doesn't include public weal. I think that public weal is still used in some specialized jargon - especially law, and perhaps poltical theory. You may want to find a citation to back up your assertion that the phrase is not archaic. Best, Cnilep (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All right. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Trilogies and the like
I see you've added other categories for literary and film series. However, i think that using "trilogy" and "tetralogy" should probably be avoided, as people are bound to add film and book series to these categories which do not form true "trilogies", etc. Hence the use of "Literary series with x entries", etc. If you look at the List of film series with three entries page (which used to be called List of film trilogies), you'll see a lot of things on there which aren't "trilogies" and how open to abuse these pages can be. It may be worth considering changing these categories to follow the "series with x entries" format. Robsinden (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Baitullah Mehsud
Good work and thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your reformatting work at List of UFO religions. Cirt (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

African hyphen American Vernacular English
Please see the talk page. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Family name article
The Man iQ, I very much like your following improvement of this article,

"A family name (in Western contexts usually referred to as a last name)", which previously was "A family name or last name "

I can agree that last name is usually used in everyday speaking here in the U.S., but maybe not usually used in writing, as in WP in my limited experience. Therefore, may I suggest replacing the word usually with the word often, which has the same feel -- and is equally helpful to the WP reader, I think you might agree. I would trust your judgment on the matter, rather than my own. Is one word important enough to take up both your time and my own? I thought it might be, on behalf of the many WP readers.

Keep up your good work. And my highest compliments on your User page (higher than that, really) and your Talk page. For7thGen (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I debated that myself. Around where I live, "last name" is used vastly more often. I made the distinction because not all family names are last names—for example, Hungarian or Asian family names (i.e., Eastern ordering), which would more appropriately be referred to as "first names", although I do not know that they ever are. Using "often" seemed to suggest the term might be informal, which it is not. However, I speak from my own sphere of experience. If you wish to change it, I won't protest. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  22:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ellipses
I've noticed that you have moved a lot of articles with ellipses in their names, to the version in which the ellipsis is one character. Per WP:ELLIPSIS, it looks like having three unspaced periods is preferred over other methods.  Gary King ( talk ) 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Grapheme-color synesthesia page move and edits
Why did you move this page? Edhubbard (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A heated post!
Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  12:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha. Ha. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Götz von Berlichingen (Goethe)
Could you please explain of Götz von Berlichingen (Goethe) to Goetz von Berlichingen (Goethe)? As you well know, the man's name is spelled "Götz", and so is the play's. I'm also baffled by which changed the target of the REDIRECT from the person to the play. I suggest you revert the page move and your related edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The play is spelled Goetz von Berlichingen in English . This is the English Wikipedia. If you feel it must be changed back, that is your decision. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  04:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tigon
I dunno were you got Tiglon from but it sure isnt a recognised official name in any zoo in the world. I would advise discussing on talk page first before moving and changing multiple articles. I would almost consider that vandalism other then i assume good faith. A quick google search turns up twice as many results for Tigon as opposed to Tiglon.  Zoo Pro  03:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam–Webster, Webster's New World, and Encarta all have tiglon as the primary spelling. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  06:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is bad form to move the page yet again without discussion first. please refer to Tiglon talk page for my response. Zoo Pro  11:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cease and Desist. Please stop editing the tigon and tigon related articles until discussion has taken place. I am shocked that an experienced editor like yourself is acting this way.  Zoo Pro  11:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiglon it is. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  05:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

C. Auguste Dupin
I have replied here Talk:Auguste Dupin. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your research into Reverse Convoy
Thanks, I don't know why but my searches didn't yield any good information. Also looking back at the page history, it seems a bot broke the redirect by retargetting it to the incorrect disambiguation page. Still, all is well that ends well, thanks alot for your help. --Taelus (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Always happy to do my part. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  11:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhura
Please note that there was an existing consensus against moving the above article to match the "canon" name. I moved it back again to the old title to match. If you'd like to move it, you might try the project page for Star Trek articles. Alastairward (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved it based on the naming of Hikaru Sulu. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Huckleberry Finn
Hi, I've reverted your replacement of Huckleberry Finn with the character info. I think it would be better if that information were to replace the redirect at Huckleberry Finn (character) and invite discussion at Talk:Huckleberry Finn. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm…I'm not sure I agree, but all right. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  20:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Farouk El-Baz
I don't understand why you changed the name of this person and his article. I've moved it back so that it matches the way he spells it, eg at - virtually all the cites had it spelled the way it had been spelled. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know what I did. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if sometimes I take the call to "be bold" a little too far. This particular article has somehow escaped my memory. Unfortunately, the best evidence I can find for why I moved it is here, which seems pretty rash of me. Thanks for keeping me in line. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, it's something most of us do at times. I was just wondering if there was a reason I missed, having done something similar in a move recently which was reverted, I think (now) correctly. Thanks for responding. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent retargets
I don't understand why you redirected Disorder (medicine) and Medical condition to the disambiguation page Sickness instead of leaving them at Disease, which compares and contrasts these specific terms at Disease. The other pages linked at the disamb page don't mention or describe these terms at all.

Did you intend to send readers to a less relevant page, or did you not realize that they were pointed at Disease specifically because Disease defines the redirected terms? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There were a number of disagreeing redirects, such as Ailments → Disease but Ailment → Illness, and Sicknesses → Illness instead of Sickness. I went through all of the redirects in this area and targeted all the potentially ambiguous ones to Sickness, where a disambiguation between Disease and Illness is found. Medically an "ailment" may be used to mean an illness, and a "medical condition" may mean a disease, but average Wikipedia searchers are likely not to make this distinction, so a disambiguation page seems appropriate. — The Man in Question (in question)  22:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Aww, thanks. — The Man in Question (in question)  06:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote icons
Voting icons or support/oppose templates have been deprecated for a long time on this project. See, for example, the log for this page. Please don't modify the comments of others with this sort of indicator. Nathan  T 17:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. They're still used in some places, such as Template talk:Did you know. The only reason I used them was because originally there was a lot of confusion on the page. However, a lot of people have made their votes clearer now. — the Man in Question (in question)  18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rfd
In general, redirects are best left unless they are actually harmful. Redirects are cheap, costing I would suppose one row in a table and one, maybe two index entries for a simple redirect (maybe 50-100 bytes). If we delete them we create another row. If we discuss deleting them we create a whole bunch of stuff, for example several copies of the Tfd page, in this case a copy of my talk page and a copy of your talk page, all the links and so forth associated with the sigs, templates and links. Still not a lot, maybe a few hundred k, but better to leave the redirects and do something else! Incidentally don't worry about redirects setting a precedent, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS covers this. Rich Farmbrough, 06:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
 * It's not about the price. It's about the quality. Anyway, they're all nominated for discussion, not deletion. — The Man in Question (in question)  06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Marocco

 * Very good work! Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — The Man in Question (in question)  00:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rfd top and Rfd bottom
I just want to ask you to please remember to subst rfd top and rfd bottom when closing a RfD discussion. Good job, by the way, on weeding out the useless "Information on" and "Facts about" redirects. Thanks, –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 20:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I do have a habit I need to break of skimming over the guidelines. And thanks. — The Man in Question (in question)  22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Cheers, –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Queue talk page redirect
Please explain this. If someone clicks the queue page's discussion tab, it's probably because they have a comment on something they saw in the queue, such as this misdirected request. If so, then Wikipedia talk:Did you know is a better place for such a comment, rather than redirecting them back to the queue itself which has no place for such comments. Art LaPella (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I was looking for the queue, this seemed like the most reasonable search item, it did not take me to anything particularly related, so I redirected it to the queue. — The Man in Question (in question)  22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Boss Johnson
I agree about that move; "Boss" was the most common usage, still is when his name turns up in journalism/histories....and as you probably know it's derived from Bjossi, his nickname in Icelandic...Duff Pattullo is already titled that way I believe; similarly, though, there are grounds for Dave Barrett vs. David Barrett and various other cases like that, where the name-in-use and the formal name are not the same....not that "Sir Dickie McBride" is an option.Skookum1 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience it has been Wikipedia practice to use the nickname if it is in wider use—viz. Ted Kennedy. — The Man in Question (in question)  11:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pussy Cats": Starring the Walkmen move
Any reason for the move? I can't see a colon on the album cover - maybe you'd like to pop something on the talk page explaining. I'm sure you have a good reason for it, it's just that maybe other people like me may wonder why this has happened, and it would be good to have a record why. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's standard that if the title of a creative work appears on two lines in two parts, the second is preceded by a colon. Wikipedia summarily adds things like this (for example, correcting capitalization of articles, short prepositions, etc., regardless of what is written on the cover) to titles. — The Man in Question (in question)  11:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

„O“
Please see Talk: O (German magazine) for reasons why I believe your move was incorrect. Rhomb (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right you are, my friend. — The Man in Question (in question)  05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Service Medals
Hey there! I noticed that you are working on the service medals, which I think is great. However, it seems that a couple of the ribbons are no longer visable - the Burba, for example. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. Happy editing! Rapier1 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I had some brief issues with syntax. — The Man in Question (in question)  03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Eli +  21:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tin Man
May I ask why you did this without bringing it up on the talk page first? In my opinion it's not a good move, as "List of Tin Man characters" could mean a list of characters that are based on or versions of the Tin Woodman, whereas "List of characters in Tin Man" makes it clear that it's a list of characters from a work entitled Tin Man. Things get a litte confusing when a series is named after a character; sort of like how we have List of characters in The Simpsons rather than "List of Simpsons characters", as the latter implies characters who are members of the Simpson family. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it because this is the standard format (e.g., List of Parks and Recreation characters, List of A Series of Unfortunate Events characters; see Category:Lists of television characters). Just as easily as "Tin Man characters" could mean characters based on the Tin Woodman, so "characters in Tin Man" could mean fictional characters within Tin Man (i.e., a character which is considered fictional even from an in-universe perspective). Similar problems come with characters of and characters from. The format which I used here negates all such problems. This has been an issue before. — The Man in Question (in question)  21:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pages that you moved
So you know you forgot to go back and change the title for that page on the main page, like pn zoeY 101's page. No need to go Back I all ready took care of that. Just can you change the iCarly page to the correct title for the charater on the main page. ThanksChecker Fred (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to oblige, but I'm not sure what you're asking. — The Man in Question (in question)  22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mine it was taken care of by another user but thanks anyway.Checker Fred (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
Holy crap, Al! It's me, Rod! I just searched your name on Google, and I found this page! Yeah, that's all. P.S. I need to figure out how you changed your signature. I'm just looking at mine for the first time, and it's pretty boring. Auphin (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, Rod. Welcome to Wikipedia. You can change your signature by clicking "my preferences" at the top of the page. — The Man in Question (in question)  00:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful
Hi there. I noticed you changed my closing comment at Articles_for_deletion/Annual_ryegrass_toxicity. Please don't do that, as it misrepresents my rationale for closing the discussion, but leaves my signature in, essentially misquoting me. If there's a particular reason you want the wording changed, feel free to ask. Thanks! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording because I have made this mistake once before, and that was how the closer summarized it. I am being misrepresented if it says I "withdrew" the nomination, because it implies that I reassessed my judgment, which I certainly did not. — The Man in Question (in question)  21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted it a bit to make it more clear; is that a better close rationale? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. — The Man in Question (in question)  21:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Double redirects
When moving pages in future, please make sure to check for double redirects, or links to the moved page will be broken. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to, but the never-failing bots have made me lazy in this respect. — the Man in Question (in question)  19:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

St George move
It is an article on a British film. Thus it must use British English. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the parentheses, it must use neutral English. "Advertisement" is used everywhere in the English-speaking world. — the Man in Question (in question)  22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimmuh
How did I come to your attention viz a viz Crimmuh? I'm confused but also quite amused. And I hope you had a Murr Crimmuh. PurpleChez (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the automatic work of WP:Twinkle. If you did not create it, then I do not know why you received the message. — the Man in Question (in question)  18:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You made a whoopsie
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boleyn&oldid=336540529 Josh Parris 04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Can you ever forgive me? — the Man in Question (in question)  04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. And why exactly did you notice my mistake? I confess I associate you with RfD, not the service awards…or me. — the Man in Question (in question)  04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't as big as it seems. Boleyn, like myself, is a disambiguator. Josh Parris 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or rather, the communities of active non-article-space editors aren't so big. — the Man in Question (in question)  05:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for service awards!
Your service awards proposal is awesome – thanks! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — the Man in Question (in question)  06:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to be less contentious, I do agree that the awards you designed are attractive, amusing and seem very fair. If approved, I can't see any harm (other than a few bruised egos) in implementing the award structure, which is why I supported the proposal. When I read your banner on my userpage, I confess to having somewhat loftier hopes about any "revamping" of the awards, to possibly include the whole page, including the woefully unhelpful guidelines... which seem to lead to the comments you can read further down the proposal talk page. People write about "cheaters" and "policing" and having "old school" privileges, making it sound like an afternoon in high school detention and locker room pecking order. It really seems to underscore the divide between the "insiders" and the casual users. I also understand the politics of Wikipedia, and that getting something as simple (and elegant) as a facelift of the awards is near impossible, much less trying to change a guideline. My concern and sarcasm were not meant to be directed at you personally, but to the situation... that we (collectively) can't even seem to agree on what they should look like (the eagle debate), let alone improve the guidelines and the way they are presented. But, I'll grumble about this in a more appropriate place. Best wishes for the new year. --  O liver  T wisted  (Talk)(Stuff) 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, you heard them: "Overhauling the existing awards…is too confusing". I didn't originally conceive of the idea as a "renovation", as I eventually called it. I just went through the awards and found all the things I thought could be positively changed without causing a fuss. Sort of a purging of my pet peeves, if you will. Happy 2010. — the Man in Question (in question)  16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend any changes to the service awards be through a WP:PUMP or WP:CENT-mentioned discussion, to get more input. Refreshing the titles and alternate titles, as well as the images, could be useful, as is extending awards to those who have experience dating backt to the beginning of the project. However, an award that cannot be earned until 2015 is a bit over the top. If you are going to have an over-the-top award, make it really impossible, such as 100 years of service and 1 Google edits. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A three-way intersection for you
You like Lemony Snickett, redirects and fixing broken stuff. As such you'll love: User:Josh Parris/Redirects from incorrect names. Skip the non-Lemony stuff. Josh Parris 09:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason a lot of those anchors don't exist is because I've been (albeit slowly) working on a rewrite of those articles in which the anchors do exist. — the Man in Question (in question)  02:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Service Award proposal
Thanks, I've voted and expressed my opinion. BTW-- you got me, I clicked the "you have new messages"! :D Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And, of course, thanks for voting! — the Man in Question (in question)  02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Inre this diff
I appreciate your inviting me to the discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since the decision affects you, it's your right to be a part of it. — the Man in Question (in question)  02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem a complicated set of parameters should be detemined to quantify amount and edit type versus actual time on project, as I think Tine on Project is far less important than the quality and type of edit. For me, I am a bit confused... I qualify as "veteran" for my time, but perhaps as "veteran editor III" for my edits themselves ... closing on 17,000 total with almost 16,000 live... with nearly 4,000 unique articles edited. My 4.40 per page average is due to my so many times hitting preview before the final "edit". Like right now for example... I previewed 5 or 6 times to check for typos and spelling before hitting "save". I will spend some time there seeing is such a question has been asked or considered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too hit preview multiple times. Unfortunately, I often find something else to edit later on the same page, so there is the occasional string of "The Man in Question" to be found on history pages. — the Man in Question (in question)  03:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And just did another because of an EC during my last preview. (chuckle).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bipolar/Bipolarism
You probably noticed that I've been hanging around the Bipolar article. As one who has bipolar I I feel like I have a good handle on terminology. My observation has been that I have never heard the word 'bipolarism' to describe the condition. I thought at first there was no such word as 'bipolarism' until I did a brief google search. LOL! The spell checker here on Wikipedia keeps telling me that 'bipolarism' is not a word! I don't think its a big deal, it just isn't commonly used. Thanks. bpage (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A few instances of its use: . Also, just as a point, spellcheck does not alert whether or not something is a word, simply whether or not the word is listed in its catalogue. — the Man in Question (in question)  02:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: RfD
Funny that you mention that, really, 'cause I was intending on doing this...

Cheers!
Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question)  02:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What?...
Um, each of your life stories are different. Are you even being serious?-- Jakkinx Talk to me!  19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious as a man may be. — the Man in Question (in question)  19:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)