User talk:Steve block/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my talk page.

Contents 1 Category:African American athletes to category:African American track and field athletes 2 Charles Mills Gayley 3 Mary Welsh Hemingway 4 Ireland & UK Portals 5 Comicspanel no_source tags 6 Sympathy 7 your edit of Maus 8 Comic book template 9 WP:V citations 10 Invitation to comment 11 Comics Collaboration of the Month 12 Pokemon test 13 Merry Christmas!! 14 Civility on talk pages 15 MFD 16 Don't worry 17 Comics in 2005 Question 18 Good Faith 19 Civility 19.1 Possible Resolution 20 Kelly Martin Comments 21 Re:MFD SlimVirgin 22 Template:Notability 23 WP:WEB 24 RE: Sourcing 25 Sheep vote MFD 26 WP:WEB 27 WP:N 28 Jewish lists etc. 29 Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession 30 Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) 31 categories vs. Flickr-style tags 32 Leaving 33 I suck 34 Page moves 35 limited series 36 Re: List of limited series 37 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic 38 Template request 39 Dyslexic's user page 40 Alan Moore 41 Your vote on the RFR poll 42 Patrick Alexander 43 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh Computers 44 What?

Category:African American athletes to category:African American track and field athletes

since discussion occurring on this how developed and there s agreement that the word "athlete" used this way is and Americanism and not meant as a sportspeople of athletics, i m gonna go and strike out the proposed name in favour of Category:African American sportspeople. please revert this edit if for some reason you object. Regards, -Mayumashu 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles Mills Gayley

_ _ Hi, Steve, and thank you for stating yr concern abt this speedy (which another user nominated, & i agreed with and carried out). I don't blame you for questioning the grounds; IMO the "claim of notability" concept needs as much explication as does WP:PN -- which i suppose would lead to only a little fewer problems, as some admins would ignore it as freely as some ignore the (to me) very clear patent-nonsense commentary.
_ _ If you wish, i will approach the nominator and propose that

1. i un-speedy CMG; that would be on the grounds that i may have made a mistake; i'd have to do a little research & see whether that is kosher w/o going thru VfU, and i think it would deserve at least a notification on WP:VfU; and
2. the nominator then AfD it, inviting a side discussion of whether the Speedy was proper.
   

_ _ Think that over & let me know where you come down. I would welcome more community guidance on this; i think this would not be WP:POINT, since there is clearly a real disagreement between you and the nominator (whether or not between either of you-all and me); IMO the debate would be informative and perhaps valuably so.
--Jerzy•t 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's see here:

_ _ You said

• Only just noticed this got deleted.

Simple statement of relevant fact.

_ _ And

• I'm not sure I agree this was a speedy candidate to be honest, ...

Factual expression about having an opinion; the opinion is politely hedged.

_ _ And

• ... it certainly asserted the notability of the subject.

An implicit opinion about the meaning, in context, of "assert" and "notable" -- Oh-oh, and described with "certainly"! That's a hyperbole, and as such that's ... uh ... uh ... that's a violation of the Vulcan Code! Churlish? Nah!

_ _ And

• That said, ... :

Hmm, perhaps a sarcastic dismissal of your own previous point, serving to accuse me of harshly dismissing it by the deletion. That's a little too sophisticated to be called "churlish", and IMO it's fair play, even if slightly ... contentious.

_ _ And

• ... it probably would not have survived afd, ...

Reasonable statement.

_ _ And

• ... although I would have liked to have seen how it got on and at least had the chance to argue its case.

Reasonable expression of reasonable disappointment.

_ _ And

• ... Still, c'est la vie.

Vague as to degree of disappointment and/or resentment, but such vagueness is probably an ideal balance between frankness and cooperativeness.

_ _ So you haven't been churlish, and perhaps it is i who owes you, for going over the top in giving at least an appearance of extreme care for fairness, co-operation, and rationalism -- which might leave you uncomfortable enough to engage in uncalled-for self-criticism. And maybe i just did it again. [smile; shrug]

--Jerzy•t 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You said

However, yes, the speedy clause needs debate, and perhaps I'll look at that too. I might have a trawl through the delete logs and pick better candidates for a fight. This probably isn't the right case though.

I think that also avoids WP:POINT, but IMO the ideal avenue would be to keep lks (you may already) to the bios where you think you've made a major contrib to identifying the subjects as notable (as well as keeping them on your watchlist); if one is AfD'ed you'll see it via watchlist, and tho deleted articles evaporate from your watchlist & contribs (IIRC), speedied articles will show up as red lks. IMO searching for others' questionably speedied articles is likely to be hard to sustain, since you'd have to at least glance at so much obvious crap. That is to say, the best way to find good test cases on notability assertion is to make them in the form of well-writ & AfD-survivable bios of worthy minor figures. (Hmm, of course you may have meant looking for articles you already worked on that got deleted, since i thk the edit-count tool among Kate's Tools has an option for viewing a user's deleted edits: i'd check, but it's down at the moment.) And, while i see no evidence of your being one of those who needs to be told so, IMO there's no harm (& at least some benefit to browsers of user-talk pages) in saying this often: that Wiki-politics is worth doing, but IMO not a worthy reason for more than briefly neglecting one's for-their-own-sakes editing projects.
--Jerzy•t 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mary Welsh Hemingway

I do not agree that being married to someone famous makes someone notable, although in this case it probably tips the balance away from CSD eligibility. I am sending this to AFD instead. Stifle 12:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What improvements do you suggest on Mary Welsh Hemingway's bio? John1963 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ireland & UK Portals

I see. The Ireland Portal is not about the country Ireland (not solely), but rather the island... That's indeed somewhat...curious. But under the circumstances I guess you're right. Although it does look weird on the template when we see the UK listed under "sovereign states" and Ireland under "Islands" (I noticed it when I was reading a completely unrelated Portal). Regards, Redux 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comicspanel no_source tags

I understand (and even agree) that having more source info for the comics panels we have would be a good and important thing. I removed the tags simply as a way of cleaning out the CAT:NS catagory of things that should not be deleted on sight. I assume you agree that such panels should not be deleted in this way. I'd suggest you add a note to the images, requesting further source info, and only add the no_source tag if/when you want them to be blown away. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page; but I had an additional question you might be able to help with. Is it consensus among those involved that album covers also require this explicit sourcing? I've noticed some album covers in the catagory, and I've been not deleting them. Should I start? JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sympathy

Steve - No worries, man. I don't want you leaving, too. I'm glad to hear you're focusing on your central interest, not the politics. There really is plenty of easy, enjoyable, uncontroversial work to do on the 'pedia; the controversial stuff won't blow up if you leave it as long as you need to. I, at least, really appreciate your work here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

your edit of Maus

Removing statements just because they are unsourced is not really a good enough reason. Unfortunately >95% of Wikipedia content does not site a verifiable source; that doesn't make it deletable. We should instead try to improve the situation. See you around. ike9898 02:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comic book template

Thanks for your message and sorry for my failed try to convert comic book template. This was the first if-using template where my manual conversion process failed. I'm almost certain that if someone had written a converter it would spit out an error message when trying to convert Template:Comic book reference.

Please feel free to revert. I'm not disappointed at all. I understand that a working template is prime. I did a "related changes" listing and found no uses in articles so I was maybe a bit more bold than otherwise.

There is a heated debate on the bad side of meta-templates at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates and I feel that the whole technology behind if is at stake as we are accused of server strain by some proponents. As a response to that AzaToth created qif (see template talk:qif for docu) as a more server friendlier version of if. I might try to vote "if" for deletion in the future if I see we can convert to qif.

I have taken comic book to my user space template testing place at User:Adrian_Buehlmann/x2 (test cases at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/x2) for further examination. I feel there must be two if blocks that contain only "test" parts (no "then" parts), which is something that is not allowed with qif as it does not handled degenerate cases. But I can't see the problem at the moment. Maybe I will have a look at it at a later time.

Sorry again for disturbing! – Adrian | Talk 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On meta Template:Qif is named m:Template:If _→AzaToth 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Steve! I could help you setup a test environment under your user space. Shall I? – Adrian | Talk 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A new reply is on User_talk:Adrian_Buehlmann#Comic book template. – Adrian | Talk 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A new reply is on User_talk:Adrian_Buehlmann#Comic book template. – Adrian | Talk 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Invitation to comment

Even though we disagreed I thought your contribution was reasoned and civilized, and I wanted to invite you to comment on the call for deletion of the ammended category, here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15#Category:Pederastic lovers Regards, Haiduc 23:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Month

Hello Steve block/Archive 4. Superhero, the article you supported is now Comics Collaboration of the Month. Please improve it in any way you see fit to bring it up to featured article standard. Thank you in advance, --Jamdav86 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

Pokemon test

I saw your User:Steve block/Pokemon test thing and thought it was hilarious (and all too true). I would suggest moving it (or copying it) to Wikipedia:Pokémon test. I think it deserves a spot in the Wikipedia namespace. If we can have Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we can certainly have this. Just a thought. Matt Yeager 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Civility on talk pages

How was I in the least uncivil or attacking you? Confused. Dyslexic agnostic 09:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you mean with T-man! I thought I had somehow said something bad to you. LOL! Thanks for the advice! <grin> Dyslexic agnostic 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MFD

Sure, I'll use those if I remember to, it's just that I was a bit confused because the process had changed since the last time I'd used it (about a month ago). I believe that happens to a lot of people. But in general I disapprove of making processes less accessible - that includes the bunch of abbreviations people use on IFD, and the suggestion that different processes require different templates for the same thing. Radiant_>|< 10:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been meaning to put all 'major' policies on a central page (WP:NUT). But there's quite a lot of them, and if one would include guidelines then it becomes troublesome. What we'd probably need is a Changelog. Hm, come to think of it, why not? Let's start one. Wikipedia:Changelog. Please help and advertise? Radiant_>|< 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry

Dyslexic ena I have a deal, we became pal recently--T for Trouble-maker 10:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

- Whatevah --T for Trouble-maker 10:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Steve, I'm ashamed, but I'm gonna have to ask you to ask you to be more organized when writing, English is my second languaje, I had a hard time answering you, all because of your way of spacing paragraph... i know I'm being a dck, but since you are so special. I feel confortable enough to ask you. By the way, I'm not so perfect either, I know, if I had my points the way they are now since the begining, you wouldn't have miss them. They all tend to say the same: we need more quotes--T for Trouble-maker 11:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All i want is a freaking copypaste of york, not a formal thing, not for the article, just for me and the others to read. I've started answering my own points below rather than changing them. That's all i'm ofering. Stick with it, i'm tired of repeating myself, so I won't do otherway. And stick to the issues, please.--T for Trouble-maker 12:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

could you focus instead of complainind? you are the one replying to what i say but always missing the points. Pease quit whining, is really obnoxious, I only care for Batman--T for Trouble-maker 22:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comics in 2005 Question

Steve, I've been cleaning up references to "Epic" and came across the November 28th entry. Do you know what the sentence about the NYT is supposed to mean? I can't figure out what to change the link to without understanding! John (Jwy) 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

that works. On other instances like that I've dropped the link altogether as the information they get there isn't very useful in the context. If they know what the word means, then they should get it. I wasn't reading carefully enough when I first saw it (and didn't want to sign up with NYT to read the article linked). But as it stands, it should be fine. thanks! John (Jwy) 06:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith

Thank you for assuming good faith. I wasn't trying to close down debate, I only wanted to encourage people to centralise their discussion on userboxes.--God of War 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility

_ _ I wrote on Template talk:Marvel-Comics-stub

Spam is rude. Spam is self-centered. Spam sucks.

and

Wiki-projects should not suck. Stop it.

and also referred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates (which i had written before reading the Marvel-tmplt tk, but saved abt a minute later than the edit i just mentioned).
_ _ Almost a half an hour later, you responded on that tmplt-tk page, AFAICS about stub-policy matters only.
_ _ As i said, i'd by then already posted at almost the same time my first post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates#Second Independent Thread (then the only content in section "W-Proj refs in Stub tags"), including:

...WP and the comics articles will be best helped by removing from these templates these invitations to regard comic-project editors as self-centered and rude.

You indicated reading this 4 minutes after your previous comment, in saying

Oh, and having just read your message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates, perhaps you could bear Wikipedia:Civility in mind when throwing around terms such as "self-centered and rude".
Thank you. Steve block talk 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ 8 minutes later, on my talk page, you wrote (my emphasis added, to focus on the civility aspect w/o omitting its context)

I've responded to your removals at Template talk:Marvel-Comics-stub. I'd appreciate it if you could respond, as I'm unconvinced by your arguments, but neither do I wish to engage in an edit war. I'd also appreciate it if you could moderate your tone, it doesn't really aid the discussion. I can't really see the need to tell people they suck. Steve block talk 21:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ I was thoro in organizing that chronology, trying to be as clear as i can what comments you are referring to when, but i end just vaguely puzzled; never mind.
_ _ I've also taken the opportunity to read the civility policy that you politely & IMO wisely lk'd; i've never, i think, had it directly cited to me, and probably have always read the term on WP as "forgoing of personal attacks", while i find its counsel usefully far broader. I consciously considered, as i was writing, that it was important to stick to the characterization of the text, and not of the editors responsible for it, and implicitly counted -- contrary to the civility standard -- on others taking the responsibility to distinguish such characterizations from personal ones. (I told myself more or less that

"Stop sucking" (an echo of Letterman's parody of a half-time peptalk that ends "Get out there and suck!") sounds too personal, even tho it'd be nice to put across "stop doing what makes the project suck" more punchily than "Wiki-projects should not suck. Stop it."

But that was still not what the civility standard is about!)
_ _ I agree that i fell short of what WP:CIV urges; in particular, i did indeed throw around "self-centered and rude", and "suck" and for that matter "spam". And even tho i didn't "tell people they suck", i probably have myself to blame for eliciting that intimation.
_ _ There's a limit to how seriously i'll take this "official policy": it seems to need that status primarily to keep people from unilaterally removing

"civility" is just an informal rule

from it, as they might to turn it into an uncivil club that they'd like to wield. But nevertheless, your reference to it has been valuable for me. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Resolution

At the least, sure, i can pursue it in other cases without dragging you back into it. But are you asking me to think thru whether i can drop the issue completely where it stands now? (That'd be a lot easier to do, if it turns out to be very hard to find the instances elsewhere! [grin])
--Jerzy•t 23:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin Comments

Hey there, just wanted to say I read your comments over at her rfc, and they made a lot of sense. I've not had the time to read the full dicussion(s) yet, but though I am opposed entirely to her actions, I am mindful of the fact that such a legitimate position as is held by many (if not the majority of) users, can quickly become lost and degraded in value in what is seen from the exterior as a 'mad mob rabble thirsting for blood' as I believe was mentioned on the corresponding rfa. It was a welcome sight to see a clear mind amongst the throng. - Hayter 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:MFD SlimVirgin

Oops. Fixed, thanks. I seem to have some sort of discussion closing disease lately. Anyway, thanks!--Sean|Black 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, closed them. Thanks!--Sean|Black 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Notability

Has the template any demonstrable consensus behind it? I notice we have {{Not verified}}, would that not also, and perhaps better, suit your purpose? No and no. Please feel very welcome to bring it to TfD so those who delete nn articles all the time can comment. The rationale for {{Notability}} is in its first edit summary. Thank you for your note. -- Perfecto  11:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to see also the policy page Wikipedia:Deletion policy which lists these guidelines as reasons for nominating articles to AfD. -- Perfecto  14:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm more for adding WP:CORP and WP:WEB to the policy page, since it reflects the current practice in AfD. But I never insist, so do what fits you. -- Perfecto  16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB

Already had the edit window open for comments! I've heaped a little praise on you there, but i won't be afraid to gush on you a bit here: please, oh please, have my wikibabies. You have done the work of twelve editors, and should be roundly applauded. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: My observation. I'm actually trying not to contribute to this too much now, but I'm having a hard time keeping my hand off it, so to speak. Think of me as on a twelve-step program to get back into article space. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sourcing

And thank you for the work you've done with the guidelines. I, too, look forward to working with you on other articles. -- Dragonfiend 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sheep vote MFD

Hi, you closed the sheep vote MFD as delete, but you didn't actually delete it. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The vote for delete is 63% (7 for, 4 against). Since this falls below what it generally considered as consensus, wouldn't it be better if you add a line about it in the summary of debate ? Tintin Talk 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Since 'weak' votes are not mentioned, I guess it is up to the closing admin to decide on it. But in such borderline cases, it would be helpful if you add an explanation so that the readers can be certain that it is a deliberate decision and not a mistake. Tintin Talk 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I delete articles asap after closing the debate, just to avoid the possible confusion. But you left a note on AN, so you did at least alert people, even if noone listened. It is something of a tricky debate to close. Obviously ignoring Carnildo, I'm also inclined to give little time to Sebastian who states a refusal to even entertain the debate properly (including after the provision of a link he should have found for himself). Extreme Unction writes a very persuasive comment which at least one other editor adopts (and this is, after all, a discussion, not a vote), although the reasoned keepers are not completely without merit. Xoloz's comment, whilst possibly true is quite effectively rebutted by Cryptic, whose comment also harks back to the previous VfD. The previous VfD was not handled as well as it might have been, and from reading that, I think there is little support to retain the page, at least on the English Wikipedia (there were transwiki to Meta suggestions which have some merit). Taken altogether, I think that finding a rough consensus to delete is reasonable and certainly within admin discretion. I must confess to being unsure of why you userfied it, though, but that's up to you.

However, if this were to come up on Deletion Review, there is a chance it would be overturned since it is below the numerics of two-thirds, and no reasoning is given. When closing a debate that is borderline or one in which your discretion is used, a few sentences explaining why you did what you did is an effective way of making your decision stick, and demonstrating that you were, indeed, within your discretion. It also doesn't leave people wondering why you did what you did. It's both permissible, and encouraged. -Splash^talk 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've actually never used Special:Export, but it does say on there that spitting out page history is 'temporarily' disabled. I think (and that's all, since I have never executed a transwiki, either) that what is most usually done is that the history is pasted onto the new talk page with a comment "Page history from en.wikipedia", or somesuch. -Splash^talk 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed your last message only now. Don't bother about this at all. Closing an MfD incorrectly (this may not even be incorrect, just confusing) is hardly a matter of life and death. And it is not as if those of us who make these comments do everything perfectly all the time :-) Tintin Talk 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Probably ask the user to who's space you moved it if they actually want it there bearing in mind the transwiki and delete or not as they say. It's an editorial decision to transwiki, though (apart from getting hold of the deleted history, but that's available upon request).-Splash^talk 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB

I like the intent, but its sheer length and amount of footnotes make the page somewhat impractical imho. Radiant_>|< 22:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, you've done to it what I've wanted to do, but not had the time to do, for some while. (I came to it to cross check something just now, and was greatly surprised.) Uncle G 04:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:N

Well, the thing is that it really isn't a proposal. Tagging it as such leads to the misunderstanding that decisions cannot (and are not) be based on the concept of notability, when in fact such decisions occur daily. Of course the exact definition is up to debate and subjective, but that in concept is very wiki, and applies to many of our other guidelines (e.g. Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Attack page and Wikipedia:Reliable sources all fail to give an exact definition of the term they're describing, nor should they be required to). Radiant_>|< 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable. That 'guideline' tag was put up too hastily. I think that since this was intended as an essay (and indeed, it is written as one, doesn't propose anything actionable, and mainly serves as an attempted definition of the term) it should remain an essay. I've replaced the guideline tag, instead adding a line that clearly states it's an essay rather than majority opinion, and points to Template:IncGuide. What do you think? Radiant_>|< 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. I'll take a sensible discussion with you over the ruleslawyering nonsense of a certain group of other users any day. Radiant_>|< 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, that hurts. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lists etc.

Hi Steve, I think people are getting way too worked up about these lists. They are useful for those anyone who is researching or is interested in Secular Jewish culture as User:Smerus is doing (a PhD on Jewry in music), therefore it is no way an indiscriminate colllection of information, Regards Arniep 15:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession

Sorry for misunderstanding. I did not imply any bad faith on your part. However, I do believe that the discussion should be on that page should indeed stop, as it raises too much tension and blood pressure.--Pecher 15:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement Were I to initiate a phd into the colouring of ladies undergarments on any given day it would not by de facto make such information encyclopedic in my opinion was a direct attack on the integrity and value of the research being carried out by User:Smerus and therefore, in my opinion violated Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, a fact I was merely pointing out on the discussion page, Regards Arniep 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Steve but it seemed to me that you were saying that David's research had as equal validity as "a phd into the colouring of ladies undergarments on any given day" . My description of your deletionist position is certainly justified as on the vote to delete all Jewish categories you stated:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_25#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people

Delete all. I find I'm very confused by these categories, they are in the category tree as both an ethnicity and a religion, which to me doesn't seem right. Steve block talk 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

and on the proposal to delete all Jewish lists you stated:

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession/Archive -lists by religion-ethnicity and profession debate

Agree. I'm not convinced by the notability of such lists, being mindful of the precedent they set. Steve block talk 16:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Arniep 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have stated on the discussion that I accept User:Smerus' judgement in his accepting of your apology, I hope we can leave it at that. Arniep 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but how can you state the above are loosely connected (your words), one was a proposal to delete the majority of Jewish categories, and the other was to delete the majority of Jewish lists. To say that I should ignore the above statements that you made in a discussion on exactly the same subject is just not realistic. You stated that to acknowledge people as part of a Jewish community in the form of lists or categories is not of encyclopedic value, and that Jewish people should only be categorized under Category:Jews. Can I ask what encyclopedic use that would be, having such an enormous category not subdivided into professions? Arniep 21:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find no retraction nor an apology in your recent statement. Further, your statement indicates I was at fault by accepting an apology which was not intended to be accepted in such a way. You leave me no other choice but to take this matter further. Steve block talk 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I agree my statement was hot headed and accept your removal of it. I felt as if it was an attack on me personally as well as David as his research is in relation to my own relative. Arniep 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I am sorry, that is really the first time I have ever said anything uncivil. It is just that I felt extremely stressed as we had already had the huge debate on the previous page where I thought I had made pretty good arguments to keep, and it felt like people were just trying to try again and again to delete the Jewish lists and categories. I really don't understand what people have against listing notable Jewish people in history. I agree that it is unhelpful in many cases to have people only in narrow categories, and not in a parent category, for example putting people in Jewish American actors, but not in American actors, but actually a lot of those in the former are also in the latter category. I noticed that someone removed people from Category:People from New York City and put them in Category:Manhattanites and Category:Brooklynites, really I would prefer if they could remain in both the narrower and the broader category. Arniep 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd apply the same argument to most other categories, i.e. I would like to be able to browse an alphabetical category of Category:Travel writers or Category:Opera singers knowing that all the people were there not hiding in some national or ethnic sub-category. Arniep 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I can see where your coming from with the categories. I still feel that we cannot pretend that lists by nationality and profession are only there to subdivide people by geographic area. There is obviously an element of national cultural identity in linking the two. If it can be argued that an ethnicity or religion has an identity comparable to that of a nationality (i.e. Jews, Parsis, Roma, Sikhs, Catalonians, Basque) I don't see a problem with making lists that link them with professions. Some people may find them boring, but I don't see that as a good reason to delete. Arniep 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Re: your adding a reference to the Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). I have seen a bunch of your edits on comics articles over the past months and have been really impressed, 'specially on your contributions to Eddie Campbell's wikipedia page. So, thanks a whole lot! You rule. DollyD 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

categories vs. Flickr-style tags

Hi Steve, Are you going to follow up with the developers about this (perhaps send mail to mail:wikitech-l or enter an enhancement request on Wikipedia:MediaZilla)? I'm not sure if my response at WP:VPT reads like it, but I think this is an excellent idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

Steve, thanks for the supportive comment. I guess I just needed a little break. I am outraged by the conduct of User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow; he is insulting, and further, his edits are horrendous. His obsession with his very few subject matters (mainly Batman related) has been an annoyance to most other editors of those pages. Now I am being wikistalked, in that he has moved into the whole limited series debate simply because I had begun editing this area. I will not be leaving wikipedia, and I will strictly edit T-Man's foolinshness. Further, I will ignore his rude comments towards me completely. Thanks again for your support. Dyslexic agnostic 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked at the criteria for Request for comment, thanks. I will certainly consider it, especially if T-Man continues with his attacks. Dyslexic agnostic 16:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

...BTW. I got the pages in my contribution list first and then hw wikistalked me. (I read above these words after answering you below). I even call him a stalker and harasser firts. We agreed in the past to leave insults, but since he won't stop calling me moron I guess he likes to be called names. History pages don't lie. Anyways, that's not important, since I started fighting fire with fire now, my only rule is never to delete info and rather copyedit. Other thing... he ignores all about DC and yet, he edits deleting stuff in several DC pages; as you can verify in the middle of this page and here.--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 19:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I suck

Well... that's because I suck... I'm not that sure about that "be bold" advise anomore. hah, hah. I dind't even finish to read your message, I'm gonna. But I was really expecting somebody with your reaction. The only thing I can say is I'm very sorry. I apologise.

If a series wasn't limited i wouldn't be called maxiseries. But I don't remember how are maxiseries call when they are within an ongoing series? And that got me confused: I guess my lesson here is never to "be Bold" when I'm confused. Sorry I got in your nerves on the process. --T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 18:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Did I insulted anyone? I agree with the no insults policy, but maybe I sliped. Particularly on talk pages. I'm sorry if I did... I moved "list of maxiseries" to list of "list of limited maxiseries". Then I did a bigger mistake by trying to fix things: Istead of moving back the info, erasing the redirect on "list of maxiseries", I tried to fix things by moving "list of maxiseries" to "list of l maxiseries", to then (having no page named list of maxiseries") move "list of limited maxiseries" to "list of maxiseries"... Then I learned the discussion page was named "Talk list of l maxiseries", and moved that to "Talk list of maxiseries". Everything seemed ok after that, but I guess there are going to be some functional errors if nobody with better skills than mine checks it.--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just erase list of limited series? its existence is just a mistake of mine that even I won't defend.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, I ment to say the "list of l maxiseries". hahaha--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Sorry. I always move talk pages with the article. Some of the page moves by T-Man he did by creating new pages and shifting the contents. I won't be making further moves, as we have only two pages now, limited series (comics) and list of limited series. Dyslexic agnostic 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The original history is here. Dyslexic agnostic 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to answer your question on limited series (comics), but it is probable inadequate. I favour the move to limited series, if you can use a robot to replace all the many wikis. i am fairly certain everyone can be replaced without concern, as they all relate to comics (the term not used in other genres). I apologize again for the archive... I didn't realize that an active straw poll was in session. Dyslexic agnostic 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

limited series

I there a list of limited series?? that's a good idea there can be all the maxiseries, miniseries and regular limited series and even tie-ins... (Sorry, I overread again after editing)--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I saw you were revising "limited series (comics) to "limited series", and helped you along the way! Dyslexic agnostic 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So you moved the list of maxiseries to "list of limited series" I've got only one thought before you go any further... you are man, Steve!! great idea!! keep it real!!... You are the coolest. You are like the Solomon King of wikipedia. BTW, do you think the "Tie-in series" term is ok? Those limited series have been called that for sure, but I dunno if that's the most apropiated term--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of limited series

Yes. Brian K. Vaughn has made clear on several occasions that Y and Ex Machina will only run for 60 and 50 issues respectively [1][[2]. Thus by any reasonable definition they are limited series. If this does not comply with the current definition of a limited series, then I suggest that definition be changed. Iron Ghost 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so promptly. I'm afraid I can not agree. If Ex Machina and Y are not limited series then what are they? I understand that they do not meet with the current definition of a limited series which is why I suggested that the definition is in error. I suggest a Straw Poll be set up on the limited series list talk page to resolve this issue. I trust you will have no objections to this? With regard to the article where Vaughn refers to the series as ongoing I think that if you read the article more carefully you will find that you have taken his words out of context. Iron Ghost 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the fact that you mentioned that Vaughan refered to Y as an ongoing series without also noting that he also said that the series would end at around 60 issues led me to conclude that you had misread the article. My apologies.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion and this current discussion is creating more heat than light. Therefore I've removed Y and Ex Machina from the list to comply with the definition as it stands and have suggested a change of criteria on the talk page. Hopefully this will settle the matter one way or the other. Iron Ghost 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Template request

Hi, I'm trying to clear out the backlog at the requested templates page and wanted to ask you about Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Comic_art_citation_templates. It looks like you created Template:Comic strip reference for this. Is the request closed or are you still looking for a hand on getting things working? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic's user page

Dyslexic's user page has been vandalized. Could you look into it? Thanks (I'm not really sure what the procedure is, I'm sure a revert's in order, but I was wondering about leaving that pleasant vandalism note on the anon user's talk page.) Thanks.--Gillespee 05:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Plus, can you determine if 200.112.96.113 is a sockpuppet of T-Man? Dyslexic agnostic 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from further talk on T-Man's page... I have just added a comment on T-man's overreaction and banning on the arbitration evidence page. I really want to work all this out, but I see now how poisoned the atmosphere is, and how T-man believes that I have a hidden agenda and cannot be taken at my word. Dyslexic agnostic 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Alan Moore has been selected as the comics collab of the month. Please stop by and see what you can contribute! ike9898 02:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Steve block, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander

Yeah, it should have been noted on the AfD, and that was an oversight on my part. Sorry about that. Ambi 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks steve, my rampage was out of place. I think I apologize and explain thngs to DA more apropiately now. There you can get a little better how come I outbursted in such inapropiate way. People doesn have to call you a bad word or attack you directly to offend you. I'm sure you can recall people on real life are likewise able to make you feel you like exploding in such indirect manner. You hit the blank when you remembered DA this, DA's words on my page, athough polite, coming from this person, come like knifes in the stomach.

Thanks for dealing with me.

--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh Computers

WP:SNOWBALL. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

whilst I understand how you came to close it early Then ignore my comment. :) Johnleemk | Talk 11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my comments on Talk:Mesh Computers. I think we were trying to say the same thing about how the AfD was going (I guess the terminology I would use to describe a discussion like that would be that if the discussion hasn't run its course yet, that there ipso facto isn't a consensus there but rather that it is developing, with that implying that the flow of the discussion could change). And in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with DRV, I would say that the article would most likely have been kept deleted if not for the new evidence, though it probably would have had to have been as sparse a discussion as the first AfD listing. It seems quite common practice to keep things deleted if no redeeming content is found, regardless of errors in process. -- Jonel | Speak 01:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What?

No, sorry , what comments. I just edited, I don't think I removed anything, there was no edit conflict. What's happened - I'll take a look. Giano | talk 22:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there's the diff [3] God knows how I acheived that - I didn't even see your comments - what do we do now - do you put them back or me? Giano | talk 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I saw someone the other day moaning they had had an edit conflict without the sign coming up, and a similar thing had happened, and there was a long and convoluted reason why it happened which went over my head - but I would immaine that's what happened. Sorry anyway. Giano | talk 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)