User talk:Tjstrf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is archived every 25 topics, by the removal of the oldest 25 topics.

Archives

01 Perm. link 1

02 Perm. link 2

Contents 1 Sigh sigh sigh's warnings 2 Consistancy 3 WP:VINE talk 4 Background on Terryeo 5 Just a note 6 Kannadiga 7 Knuckles 8 Thanks 9 Clearing this up 10 Er, I don't FEEL uncalm... 11 Thanks 12 The Halo's RfA 13 Glad we settled that 14 Contradict 15 Hey Thanx 16 All-Interval Tetrachord 17 Thanks 18 Lolicon 19 Bleach infobox 20 English 21 3RR Tag Team 22 My user pages 23 My user page 24 Please don't take the bait. 25 What you don't appreciate 26 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA 27 Conflict of interest 28 Formatting others' comments 29 Regarding your comment on WP:PAIN on User:Tequendamia 30 Request views on 3RR 31 +Anima 32 Thanks 33 Redwall Characters 34 My RfA 35 mediation 36 User:Kisshu 37 NPA 38 Danny Phantom discussion 39 AfDs 40 RfA 41 Re: Elephant (wikipedia article) AfD 42 WP:BK 43 Jump Super Stars 44 Blue Wildebeest 45 Perfect T 46 Speedy Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Librarians in popular culture 47 RfC against A Man In Black 48 Edit summary usage and preference setting 49 Sorry 50 Happy Birthday !!!! 51 Happy Birthday 52 Happy birthday 53 User talk:InShaneee 54 tfd 55 RE: Hilarious 56 Three reverts on William Connolley 57 Sockpuppet 58 Civility 59 It was a mistake 60 Template db-meta 61 On ELSA Technology 62 Control of a user talk page 63 editor review 64 Couch 65 Why did you remove Advert3? 66 Thanks 67 Let's remove the Kaien article 68 RE:db-meta 69 Naruto

[edit] Sigh sigh sigh's warnings

Thanks for your comment; his comments were deliberately rude, and the additions of tags at the top of that article were pure WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is clear you have had problems understanding Wikipedia policy, as it is also clear from our previous discussion a couple weeks ago and your not-so-sound advice on Jayjg's talk page. SighSighSigh 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

His advice was good; please stop placing spurious and uncivil warnings on my Talk: page, and please stop violating WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would second that - please do not disrupt Wikipedia by adding bogus warning to people's talk pages. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistancy

I don't know if we're looking at different definitions or something, but article consistancy is exactly my reason for changing "Gomu Gomu" to "Gum Gum". Having Luffy's attacks being called "Gum Gum" whatever at one point in the article and then "Gomu Gomu" at another point will just confuse the reader. And yeah, you're probably the 5th person or so to comment on me not archiving my talk page. I'm just lazy. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So then you're saying you'd rather have the articles be full of inconsistant naming until the series ends? The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is WP:ANIME policy? I saw the discussion page. It seems like the editors have not reached consensus over what the policy means. WhisperToMe 02:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

":Like I said there, if it ment "use the Official english version no matter what", then that clause has no point in existance. It HAS to mean "fans determine the usage"." - Wikipedia was not just written for fans of a given series. It was also written for average Joes who have no prior knowledge of a subject. Also keep in mind that not all fans of a given television show are part of the long-standing fan culture of the original shows. See, on Wikipedia, one must try to consider what works best for the broader audience. The average Joe probably will be exposed to One Piece through official book versions and versions on television. WhisperToMe 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VINE talk

Greetings Tjstrf, seeing as you've already been involved with User:Centrx concerning the illogical nature of sending WP:VINE to WP:VIE you might like to join the similarly natured discussion over on Talk:WP:VOTE. Essentially User:Centrx is trying to do the same thing with the WP:VOTE redirect (despite a WP:VIE having a corresponding WP:NOVOTE redirect). I need to step away from the computer now. Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background on Terryeo

Tjstrf, I suggest you take a look at this page:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans --Fahrenheit451 02:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Not trying to accuse you or anything, but just FYI 'blond' is correct (as is 'blonde') for describing light hair. However, because the word is used in French where the final 'e' is added for females, it's usually best to say 'blond' when referring to males or objects perceived as masculine. At least, this is the style I follow. You may of course choose to ignore this. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kannadiga

Hi,

Saw your comments on a couple of talk pages. Kannadi per se, is not any swear word that I know of. The problem is that it just doesnt mean anything. Of course in Kannada Kannadi means 'mirror'. So I hope you see the absurdity of calling Kannada speakers(or Kannadigas) "Mirrors"! Just doesnt make any sense!

And whats more, mahawiki is doing it out of spite. The first time I asked him not to do it was probably a month ago. And he retorted on some talk page saying... "wow.. he(thats me) doesnt like it! so I'll use it!!". not just me, but you can ask any Kannadiga, they'll take exception to being addressed as Kannadi, not because it is a swear word(atleast not in Kannada) but because its simply absurd and can probably be construed as being made fun of(who knows what it means in Marathi). Offensive or not, it is at best a slang.

mw's excuse that kannadigas are called kannadis in Marathi is lame. Gross ignorance of South Indian languages and customs in Northern India is not rare and that might explain Kannadigas being addressed as Kannadis. For that matter, Indians(and all others in the world) have their own terminologies to refer to people of various nationalities, ethnicities and races. That doesnt mean we start using it on en.wikipedia. Sarvagnya 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Karnatakan may well be the intuitive English word for a native of Karnataka(on that count why not Karntakaian? or Kannadaan or Kannadaian). Point is, these terms are never used, not even by international english authors. The only other term that has been used to refer to Kannadigas is the anglicised Canarese. But that is an old colonial usage(not offensive, may I hasten to add) and has fallen into disuse(since the last many many many years).

And no, he isnt adding it on the article pages yet(atleast hasnt caught my eye if he has), but there's no saying that he wont feel emboldened to add it on the article pages either(in future). Also, like I said, every Kannadiga will first react with surprise when first addressed as Kannadi. But will certainly take exception if he/she realises that it is being done out of spite and not out of bonafide ignorance.

So if he continues the use of it even on the talk pages, and even if i start ignoring it myself, rest assured, someone else(a Kannadiga) will rake this up again when he sees it. So its better we put a stop to this now. Sarvagnya 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Im not being stubborn but if u notice Sarvagnya also uses words like "Marati" for Marathi, Marathis for Marathi_people.His latest post in my inbox reads (check my talk page if u want) ..."And dont hide behind meaningless google hits which only maratis can read. Interestingly, google also gives a hit for Chatripati Shivaji. So right, Chatripati Shivaji(wow.. the name sounds so coooool), he is and will be from now on...

Insistance of Kannadig is like insistance of Bhartiya instead of Indian and 'Marathi manoos' for Maharashtrians. The user Sarvagnya is just taking revenge of his failure at Belgaon page where he tried his best to remove Marathi transliteration.

And yeah I dont insert the term into articles. Kannadi is term used in West India for residents of Karnataka. mahawiki 04:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knuckles

Do you constantly refresh the knuckles page to guard it against Falsities?

Someone's seemingly never heard of a watchlist... --tjstrf 21:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

still pretty sad

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your message on commons, that will help us to send this user in space. Currently, he is already block on commons, fr, it and de. :] Yug 23:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing this up

I never accused anyone of anything. I said that his actions appeared elitist, but I never actually called anyone elitist. Lordshmeckie 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you want, I said what I said. I didn't call him elitist, just that his actions were. Now, I'm done arguing this. It's silly. Lordshmeckie 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Er, I don't FEEL uncalm...

re Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy I don't get your comment? I am calm. However, I'm not very happy about the process that is going on that page. I don't care that much about the proposal, let it stand or fall as it will. I don't, however, think it's right or fair or proper to slap a Rejected tag on a discussion that is very much alive, productive, and running at above 2/3 in favor -- and then protect the page, and call "edit war" if that's not allowed to stand. Now I've just seen an admin unprotect the page and immediately and completely trash the text of a proposal, about one step above just blanking the page.

I'm calm, but I'm also determined that that sort of thing just not be allowed to stand, if I can do anything about it. If I just walked away and said Meh, let them have their way, that would not show calm, that would show weakness and laziness.

Am I missing something here? Herostratus 03:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Erm. I see what you're saying. I'll cogitate on that for awhile. Herostratus 03:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nah. I can't buy it. If he wanted to improve the article, he wouldn't have gone along with slapping a premature "Rejected" tag on it and then protecting it. If he wanted to advance his version he could have posted a draft on a subpage and not blanked the page -- and it was page blanking, you know (and so was the diff you showed me, for that matter). And there's all the other stuff too. But I do genuinely appreciate your input! Cheers, Herostratus 04:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. But there are a number of people that are pretty disgusted by it, I see. Herostratus 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'm not sure, how about this one?

>Radiant< 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Halo's RfA

Hey tj, thanks for the encouragement ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glad we settled that

I'm glad that we settled that matter, I'm not the type of person that goes around doing that sort of thing to everyone on Wikipedia. I obviously am not proud of it, I have had a few run ins with people in the past but lately I've been editing with causing any disturbances. I know the chances of us working together are pretty slim, but when Super Power Warriors comes out (2007/2008) perhaps we can work together on that, seeing as how I already have a template for it. Thanks again for being so forgiving. - The preceding comment was made by Grevenko Sereth 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradict

THANKS! - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Thanx

Hey, thanx for your reverts on Maratha Empire page. --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All-Interval Tetrachord

I hope I’m doing this right. Anyway, thanks for your warning about my All-Interval Tetrachord article. I did it in multiple saves. I hope it’s better now.S.dedalus 23:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help :-) S.dedalus 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon

"We'll just have to block you"? You're not even an administrator. As for the discussion, it's just too obvious that you're looking for excuses to censor editors. I'm sorry, but I don't have conversations with liars or with people who lack respect for the basic human right of expression. You're probably too young to understand, anyway.--Jreem22 06:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is the one who suggested having the links there. And Jimbo is paranoid about copyright violations (that's his pet peeve). Wikipedia is not responsible for links to outside sites. Give me a break, please.--Jreem22 07:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bleach infobox

The hiding feature is nice, but the type that offers to expand the area is too small to read on my screen. Also, I think the actual fact of hiding some publishers creates POV issues. I think we should use the normal infobox for standardization. I'm sure another solution will present itself. Dekimasu 10:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe if the English publishers were also hidden, just leaving the original publisher, it wouldn't have that POV problem. I still can't read the text, though. Dekimasu 10:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the info box hide thing too, but i think you should add the english publisher to the other too this way its fair. Also you should hide the networks that air it too this way it isnt just the manga publishers that get hidden. Malevious 14:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should put the infobox hide/show option on more animes. Expecially ones with long lists such as Naruto and Yu Yu Hakusho it would make the anime articles much more tidy. Malevious 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English

You wrote, All of which is just meaningless rhetoricizing.

I have skirts that are older than you and if you didn't understand what I wrote it might be because you have neither sufficient experience nor knowledge to keep up. I very humbly suggest that in the future, you tone down the arrogance and brush up on your reading skills. Whatever. Thank you and have a nice day :) Wyss 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Because my age is oh-so-relavent to the fact that nothing you said had any solid reasoning in it, instead relying on the use of guilt-by-association parallels between Wikipedia and MUD chat programs... Yes, very arrogant of me. Cheers! --tjstrf 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Tag Team

I don't know how to handle the situation appropriately -- its true. Be aware that there is significant history between the parties involved: [1]. Also, note how nicely editing of another template I recently suggested can go with different individuals involved: Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict --Ben Houston 23:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also be aware there is a significant history of Ben Houston wikistalking (e.g. [2] [3] [4]), falsely accusing and generally disagreeing with both editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I did recently create that template Template:Israel-Palestinian Conflict] and add it to a bunch of articles as one of the ones you point to above. I also created the article of the parent organization of Media_Watch_International as well as many other articles in the same class. You also seem to edit articles that I edit such as Engage (organization). And with regards to the September 30 article, your contributions list is publically available, as you first told me when I accused you of wikistalking [5]. --Ben Houston 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My user pages

Let me explain. I edit Wikipedia from work. I use my User page dozens of times a day. My connection at work is not fast and therefore my user pages must remain small. Secondly, people can also see my computer screen, not just in the office but also outside through the windows and I am also not the only person who uses this PC. I don't want pictures on a startup page because of this. --Squilibob 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

It is MY user page. the 3RR policy you linked to says it does not apply to user pages. I am tired of being harassed by BhaiSaab and have already filed for advocacy against him. If he wants to control the article that much, fine, he can fucking have it, I'm tired of his harassment and just want to edit in peace.Uzumaki 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of this. BhaiSaab is running a bot and harassing me. You know me, I know you from the Naruto page. I am normally a civil person. I am getting increasingly tired of being harassed and lied about. If you want me to leave wikipedia, fine, I'll fucking leave. There's no point to it anyways when an asshole like him is let to harass me over and over even after I've told him to his goddamn ugly face that I won't edit his precious article any more. Uzumaki 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

File a checkuser in addition to that 3rr report. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're accusing me of lawyering when you are making up "policy" as you go? How arrogant! Uzumaki 21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why a sockpuppet should be so concerned with policy is perplexing. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How about BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING HARASSING ME! Is THAT a good enough reason? You just keep lying and attacking me and lying some more, and harassing me, and using a fucking bot to harass me. I already told you, I wouldn't edit that article any more. You can fucking have it. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? Uzumaki 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like for you to admit that you are a sockpuppet, of course. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be lying, and unlike you, I'm not a fucking goddamn liar. Uzumaki 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but if you file a 3rr report, that may turn out difficult for me to do. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR is relatively insignificant considering the issues at hand. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me 30 minutes before you file the 3rr report. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have already filed it. Nevermind. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't take the bait.

User:Freestylefrappe has been playing the policy game for a long time. If you wish to help contructively, inform yourself on the case and discuss the problem on the relevant noticeboard [6]. Thank you. Jean-Philippe 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe is just trying to harass me. I already told him I would not touch their goddamn article any more. Uzumaki 20:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy seems pretty good at this game. If he hadn't cited policy anywhere like a normal new (vandal) user, he would already be blocked, I'm sure. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're playing a game harassing me BhaiSaab. Quit it. Just LEAVE ME ALONE. What part of that can you not fucking understand? I already told you I wouldn't edit that article any more. Ever. WHAT THE FUCK MORE DO YOU WANT? Uzumaki 21:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you could assume that some established users know what they're doing. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What you don't appreciate

All they had to do is stop harassing me, and this didn't need to go anywhere. Instead, they kept lying about me and harassing me.Uzumaki 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

"This is apparantly a huge boring task no-one wants to do, so why not make it semi-automated?"

Hi. I'll be brief: It's not that huge a task, and I'm willing to do it. I just never knew about it.

brenneman ^{L} 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

I see the talk page didn't come along (seems like a bug with the move-delete combo); I've fixed it now. The reason for this move is that the Office and OTRS get a lot of complaints about the term "vanity", since the subjects of articles find it derogatory. Hence, the intent is to deprecate the term. >Radiant< 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting others' comments

On this edit of yours: I don't understand why you reformatted my comments. I think that the significance of "¶" is clear; if I'd wanted line-broken pragraphs I'd have made them. -- Hoary 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm used to working with lots of IP's who don't get the formatting, and I thought I'd just encountered the latest in a long list of strange formatting mistakes.

I guess it works either way, though I would state that using breaks rather than paragraph markers saves the reader some trouble, especially since the pilcrow is not a commonly encountered character in written communications. It's rather esoteric as a piece of punctuation nowadays, aside from editorial proof-reading. Well, I'll avoid messing with your punctuation in the future. --tjstrf 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, no harm done. And thanks for the note. -- Hoary 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comment on WP:PAIN on User:Tequendamia

He has made numerous pejorative/racist statements against Hindus that I feel need to be addressed.He refuses to negotiate with me and continues being disruptive.Could you please talk to him and ask him to cooperate at least?Hkelkar 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request views on 3RR

Has the editor Hkelkar committed 3 RR on this Page.If so, please do what is needed TerryJ-Ho 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this editor has a habit of carrying historical baggage and using these to target the person of the editor,Please keep your views in respect of this article itself.TerryJ-Ho 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To help with understanding the problem here note that he is trying to present one Barrani as a Mufti capable of issuing Fatwa when he was a historian whose accounts include India's society in 14 century.Barrani's two books are still read for Indian Medieval history in universities:

Barani, Ziauddin Tarikh-I-Firuzshahi, Barani, Ziauddin Fatawa-I-Jahandari, The problem could be that this editor has no background in Persian and Arabic literature and his inability to understand that fatwa can have many meaningsTerryJ-Ho 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No I have not.I am very careful not to violate 3RR EVER!I rarely even violate 1RR unless it's overt vandalism.

None of the diffs beyond my first revert for the day were reverts. See for yourself:

Not a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81970320&oldid=81968853

Not a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81972522&oldid=81970739

Terry's reverts lie between these diffs.

In fact, it was User:TerryJ-Ho who started the reverting of my extremely well-sourced edits with a summary that shows clear WP:NOR violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81969852&oldid=81968853

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81971875&oldid=81970739

Both of his (not mine) edits are bad faith reverts of my sourced edits with his dubious assertions and attributions to sources that don;t contain the things he says they do.

Plus, he is trying to whitewash the Muslim Caste system and paint all the ills of the world on Hindus (kind of like the anti-Hindu version of Der Sturmer actually), which gels rather well with this bad faith AfD nom of his Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu that was so unanimously voted against him that it is virtually unprecedented on wikipedia.

I have offerred to discuss with him but he keeps edit-warring nonetheless.

Instead of warring I urge him to DISCUSS first.Hkelkar 11:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] +Anima

Well, that's why it's a reversible proposed deletion. The article did not set out any notability info whatsoever, and had been tagged for importance for some time, as you probably know. Thanks for looking into it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Manga... these mountains of inconsequential fictional crufty-cruft make me ill... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for making the Redwall userbox less ugly! I thought it was kinda ugly myself, but I'm not great with code and that was the best I could do. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redwall Characters

Well, what I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russa Nodrey was that I thought we could merge all (or most) of the individual character articles into a master List of Redwall characters organized by the book in which they first appeared. I thought that we could put the books in the order of their printing, not chronological order. For characters appearing in multiple books we'd put a line in the section for the later book saying to see the entry above. I suppose the easiest thing would be to list the characters alphabetically in the book. Make sense? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking Martin, and maybe one or two others (Maybe Matthias, Mattimeo, and Cluny as the main characters and main villian in the early books and movie/tv adaptions) could keep their own articles but still get mentions in the main list. We'll have to be really careful about what we do and don't merge though. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion here. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

[edit] mediation

Hi. I would be grateful if you could mediate the issues in the Indian caste system.The debate is getting rather rabid.Hkelkar 12:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kisshu

Actually, his block was only for 24 hours so it just wore off. Shiroi Hane 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

And why was this only issued to me. You can tell by his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Phantom (character) and revert warring on my talk page he was conducting in the same manner. — Moe 01:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, thats a reason to deliver a warning to one party and not to the other.. — Moe 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Phantom discussion

Hello. You recently participated in a discussion on the possible deletion or merger of some Danny Phantom characters. While all the articles were kept, I noted that many of those commenting on the debate suggested merging some characters into a main list. Seeing this, I've compiled a list of some of the minor characters who may not need their own article, and would like the opinions of those who weighed in originally. You can participate in the discussion here. Ral315 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs

Thanks for your comments. I just want you to know, I only notify in cases where I feel more input is neccessary. There are non-music fans who start and vote on AfDs, and I think it's important that editors with the knowledge and ability to cite sources pertaining to the article's notability have a say. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you for your message at my talk page. I withdrew my RfA and I look forward to using all the good suggestions to make me a better Wikipedian. There are no hard feelings as I view this as an opportunity to grow. Thanks again and have a great day. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Elephant (wikipedia article) AfD

Yeah, I know they were joke votes. I guess I was being a little too hard on everyone. I'll go strike that part out. --Coredesat 06:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BK

Thanks for sending Jossi to look at WP:BK. I have followed the development of this proposal quite closely and one of the problems with it has been lack of exposure, or at least lack of feedback from experienced editors. If you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate if you could give your opinion on the talk page so that we have a better idea on how it is perceived and how it could be improved. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 00:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page of the proposal but as a side note: thanks for taking the time to give your input. Pascal.Tesson 04:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jump Super Stars

You reverted my deletion of the mention of Hitsugaya in Jump Super Stars. My original rationale on September 28 was that "ichigo, renji, rukia, and orihime are in that game too so why no mention of their appearances, either mention them all or don't mention it at all." I think all should be mentioned for consistency on their respective articles or not be mentioned at all. Gdo01 18:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Wildebeest

thanks for your interest in this article. In the literature and especially on Wikipedia, the convention is all first letter caps for higher mammals. See for example other bovids, all Wildebeests, all Lemurs, all Marmorsets. It would thus be very odd and out of step to change the title. regards. Covalent 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect T

Just so you know, I was a bit terser with Perfect T than I would have been with a more usual 'new' editor. This was partly because his/her/its eighth edit was to propose the repeal of WP:NLT. There was some other assorted nonsense in the first dozen or so edits that also pointed to a returning troll instead of a confused newbie.

I firmly believe that in most cases there's nothing wrong with a banned editor returning to Wikipedia under a new name—as long as that editor doesn't continue the behaviour that got them banned in the first place. With Perfect T, I was prepared to play the if-you-want-to-pretend-to-be-a-new-editor-I'll-pretend-you're-not-suspiciously-familiar-with-Wikipedia game, where it seemed possible that T was going to shape up and do something useful. On the other hand, I wasn't going to be an idiot about it and let slide behaviour that a returning editor (or even fundamentally reasonable person) ought to know was wrong.

My terse comments were meant to convey the message that 'Yes, I know what's going on here; you need to keep your nose clean or you're going to end up in trouble under this name, too.' When Perfect T opted to respond to that by making a spurious WP:AN report, I would have asked for a CheckUser or just a flat ban if Raul hadn't beaten me to it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Librarians in popular culture

There was nothing wrong with speedy closing that discussion. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Yes, the Procedure section there recommends that only admins do speedy keeps, this isn't a requirement. And frankly, the closing admins for AFDs are so far behind that they will never complain. I've never seen anyone else complain at Deletion Review either. If somebody else wants the article deleted, they can open a new nomination. Just don't speedy keep any discussions where there is an unwithdrawn delete opinion from someone else. GRBerry 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC against A Man In Black

I am proposing an RfC against A Man In Black. Do you have any comments to make on the RfC, and are you willing to comment on the AC character list page on the RfC? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems whatsoever with his RfC, and it was not my intention to stop it from going forward. However, his behavior is unacceptable, and cannot be ignored. --InShaneee 06:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Behavior? Oh, right, I forgot - trolling, right? I must be trolling, despite you being completely unable to prove such a thing. Play your hand or fold, InShaneee. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't taunting, Tjstrf. I've grown tired of being accused of trolling, and each time I ever ask, he can never show that I am trolling or, Hell, doing any harm whatsoever to Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary usage and preference setting

Hi. I noticed the statement on your userpage that you are trying to increase your edit summary usage. I just wanted to mention, in case you weren't aware, that you can go to the Preferences page and select a setting that will auitomatically remind you to enter the summary if you forget and are about to post without one. Hope that helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about that AIV thing. I just installed ARV in my monobook.js and it's good doing it semi-automated. Apologies. --SunStar Net 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I wasn't being twitchy, just trying to do my duty. but thanks for your advice! --SunStar Net 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday !!!!

Happy Birthday !!!!! --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 09:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That was frighteningly fast. (Help, I'm being stalked!!!) --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday

I just felt like saying Happy birthday, your birthday is just 4 days after mine.Sam ov the blue sand 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy birthday

Hope you have a good birthday, and make sure to buy yourself a couple of presents (Elite Beat Agents and Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime!). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:InShaneee

It doesn't matter what the comment said, how civil it was, whether he responded to it or if he doesn't like the person who sent it. He has the right to remove comments on his talk page. Revert warring with him placing comments he doesn't want on his talk page is more of a disruption than helping the matter. There is no guideline or policy that says he has to keep those comments on his talk page and there is no guideline or policy that gives you the right ot enforce this. No more revert warring semper fi — Moe 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought thats what you two were revert warring to place on his talk page. Seeing as he hasn't removed it yet, I will not revert you. But if he removes that comment you just placed on there, I expect you to not keep at it. semper fi — Moe 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tfd

Template:Legally frivolous is up for deletion again. As you participated in the first nomination, I thought you might be interested. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Hilarious

Indeed. I haven't looked around to see the kinds of justification for a Saimoe entry, but I don't think there'd be much in the way of acceptable resources, if you know what I mean. --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three reverts on William Connolley

You did more than 3 reverts within 24 hours on W Connolley. Any reason why you shouldn't be reported? Pack it in. MarkThomas 07:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Other than that you were obviously vandalizing the page? No reason at all. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Says you. On any other page, the fact that someone is a local councillor would hardly constitute notability. MarkThomas 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It adds to the already existing claim to notability, and was cited. And you were just vandalizing the page because User:William M. Connolley blocked you for WP:3RR violation earlier. [7] --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

Comments and personal attacks made by Sarah Williams, sock of vandal MarkThomas. Available in the archive here.

[edit] Civility

Now that was funny. You give me a civility warning, when User talk:Ryulong is the one being self-righteous about the subject with his "Now, have fun editting something other than "ZOMG 4CHAN'S DOWN"" and such. Bet you didn't warn him, did you? As I said... this is getting old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kry (talk • contribs) .

[edit] It was a mistake

My comments left to him were a mistake caused by me posting them to the wrong location, I have explaned that to him.

formerly Suicidal tendancies

now: Ring modulator 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template db-meta

I just thought I'd decorate it. That's all. :P --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On ELSA Technology

I started that ages ago - in retrospect, I probably shouldn't've -- it doesn't seem notable. I have no objections to its deletion. --Improv 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Control of a user talk page

WP:USER is a guideline, not policy. Wyss has a link to, rather than an ad for, "Wikitruth", That site may be irritating but the last time I looked around it I saw nothing illegal or even offensive. Or anyway I didn't see anything before boredom overcame me -- it seemed primarily a gossip site about various users, written by people who appear severely afflicted by most of the character flaws they perhaps rightly see in others and who have way too much spare time to kill -- and I surfed elsewhere. (By contrast, I warmly recommend "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence".)

Meanwhile, WP:OWN is indeed a policy page, but it's about attempts to "own" articles, categories, etc. One's (own) user talk page is rather a grey area, I believe. -- Hoary 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an ad. Wyss has advertised this site both on his userpage and user talk and on the Village Pump[8]. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note the accusations against Jimbo in that same thread [9], where he claims that Wales leaves flaws in Wikipedia due to ulterior commercial interests and some sort of shady "wider goals". --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not "he" but "she", if it matters.

I see no ad here, unless you think that linking in an approving way to any website to which a link is unnecessary is an ad. I'd agree with that approach to links from articles, but disagree here.

The wider goals, "shady" or otherwise, would be to make money. This inference may be wrong but I see nothing strange about drawing it and nothing libelous in stating it. And what's arguably a huge flaw in WP is the openness of articles to being edited by anybody without any kind of entrance barrier (check of maturity, sobriety, sanity). Of course, the official line (one with which many people sincerely agree) is that this openness is not a bug but a feature. -- Hoary 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to any site in the community space with accompanying stated or implied endorsal is an advertisement of that site. As for the accompanying arguments by Wyss, that is exactly why the link is polemical, whether you agree with them is not the issue here. Users have been indefinitely blocked for polemical violation of WP:USER without any other ongoing violations to accompany them. (User:Rookiee) While I appreciate your input, I'm asking for another opinion. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editor review

Hi Tjstrf,

I've seen you around. I'm not an admin, but can chip in some small comments if you like... Later,--Ling.Nut 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're up for review right now I'll see what I can come up with to say about you as well. (Right now, I have to head off for work though, so it'll be a few hours at least.) --tjstrf talk 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. I was planning on taking a couple days, poking around in your contribs... so it will be a couple days from now.

Cheers--Ling.Nut 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Did it quicker than I thought; explained why on the review page. --Ling.Nut 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quickly, eh? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I fear it may be a bad thing, but then I did ask for criticism. Thank you for your honest input whatever it is (I don't see it on the review page yet). --tjstrf talk 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops; sent it to you as email! Some people may actually vote against you in an RfA just for not checking your email...--Ling.Nut 04:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! And sorry to hear you've been under the weather lately.
• Cheers--Ling.Nut 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couch

Hi. I see you reverted my deletion tag on that ridiculous couch article. Is there a deletion facility for 'meta' pages where deletions can be discussed, then? I seem to remember reading somewhere that AfD is just for 'main' articles. But surely there must be a way to get of such stupid nonsense? The Crying Orc 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! The Crying Orc 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you remove Advert3?

I think you messed up while editing the templates... yandman 08:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for telling me about that policy. I'm still new to this and am getting the hang of it.

Of course, Sniper787 is my friend and we were actually seated right next to each other when we did that.

Thanks for the clarification.

[edit] Let's remove the Kaien article

It's useless. Only creates more articles to maintain. I have been long opposed to having an article about him but haven't said anything until your comment on Luppi. Let's delete both. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping to delete the Nell Tu article as well. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that fine. While on the subject of pointless articles, should the other useless VC articles be removed? Nemu 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of them have had big roles in the filler, but have Chōjirō Sasakibe, Marechiyo Ōmaeda, Isane Kotetsu, and Tetsuzaemon Iba done anything besides talk a couple times and be beat up to show someone's strength? Nemu 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you guys are missing the point. Characters such as Chōjirō Sasakibe, Marechiyo Ōmaeda, Isane Kotetsu, and Tetsuzaemon Iba may not have done much except in sidestories, but they're status as Lieutenant, in my opinion, earns them the right to a page of their own. Luppi has a similar placement; being a ranked Espada, even if he is deceased, earns him the right to a page. However, once more Espada are revealed, then for the sake of not cluttering up the Hollows in Bleach bar at the bottom of the page, deleting Luppi's page would make sense. Better yet, once more arrancar are revealed, a merged arrancar page would reduce plenty of unnecessary space and pages.

As for Nell Tu, we haven't seen enough of her yet to determine the size of her role. However, this doesn't justify the deletion of someone else's work, their time put into the creation of that page. For all we know, Nell Tu may yet have a big role; until we can tell for sure what her role is, deleting her page would be slightly rash. Besides that, Nell Tu is the first arrancar seen in the manga that isn't evil. That in itself is pretty significant; is Ulquiorra good? Is Grimmjow good? No. The only non-evil arrancar we've seen so far is Nell Tu. HayashiKun

I held that opinion as well until recently. That was when I started tagging all of our images and noticed how many articles we actually had, and we started getting some persistant vandals. It was at that point I realized that we're definitely pushing the limits of fair use, and that the more isolated pages we have the easier it is to vandalize. As for Nell Tu's article, it's easy enough to click revert. (And on the good arrancar thing, you remember this guy we have called Wonderweiss Margera?) --tjstrf talk 00:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. As for Wonderwice Margera, he's only considered "pure" by Tosen. Tosen himself isn't exactly good if he's working for Aizen, is he? Wonderwice is a "newborn", likely not very cognitive of his surroundings. We'll have to wait til later to see whether he is good or not.

[edit] RE:db-meta

Since {{db}} refers to {{db-reason}} for its reason parameter there is no point in adding it to the db-meta template. (It also caused the formatting to screw up if I gave a reason beginning with "=", though that's probably a minor concern.) --tjstrf talk 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All that the little addition does it give other templates which call db-meta, such as db-bio, to make a customized delete link so the delete summary is automatically filled in. Check out my edit to {{db-bio}}. Now when an admin clicks "deletion", it fills in the deletion summary automatically. —Mets501 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto

• I honestly thought that that was one of the accepted definitions of "titular"; I tried to assume good faith on Iriseyes' part and checked Wiktionary, which told me I was wrong. :/ I gues Iriseyes thought someone meant to say "tit-ular" or something. :\ Danny Lilithborne 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hero is a title such as Lord and Lady etc though. The correct word is eponymous. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They're synonymous. --tjstrf talk 06:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)