User talk:LtPowers/Archive002

Lemmings

Please be careful with your edits, especially if you are leaving edit summaries criticising other editors for using vaguely inappropriate redirection templates. Cheers --Pak21 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists of computer games and an anonymous editer

Ltpowers, if you remember last year, i added a list called List of Donkey Kong games which did not exist but a couple of weeks later, someone actually started that article and it did not get removed at all. what i dont understand is that if they started that article, why cant they start the articles that i have been adding recently insted of just removing them all the time?

as for this anonymous editer. what are you talking about? that user was NOT me. i was just actually warning that user to STOP vandalizing the List of worst games ever, he just kept on adding a game called Halo 2 that he thought was a bad game and thought it was funny.ok? dose all that make sense to you? as always thanks again my good friend. Touth 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Barnstar for going the extra mile to help Touth in his efforts, where many other users would have given up. Keep up the good work! HawkerTyphoon 22:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

problem sorting

hi Ltpowers, ok, i will try and make this clear to you. i actually made a mistake in that edit summary box. here is what is was REALLY gonna be. HAHAHAAAAA..... i wish he could stop laughing (*still carries on laughing*) AND stop vanalizing this article. ok? now as you can see, i mistakenly typed in the letter i insted of the word he after the word wish and i somehow chose the wrong date at the articles edit history tag and reverted it back and i noticed i did it wrong. do you understand now? many thanks my good friend. Touth 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

of course i can and if there really is a problem, i will try my best to sort it out. cheers! by the way i just noticed that you have a very nice barnstar with a smiley face! i wish i had one of those HEHE, you are very lucky to have one. thanks for your kindness my friend. Touth 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

double redirects

Oops, sorry! I moved the page and then I had to go so I guess I forgot about it. Thanks for your help! Axem Titanium 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello again my friend, i need your help! i have just added some Userboxes on my user page but i want them in a single colum. have you got any idears on how i can solve this? many thanks my friend. Touth 23:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your kindness my best friend. Happy editing!Touth 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mama's Family

Your comments on the mama's family page were inappropriate. If you behave that way, people will hate you. Behave more appropriately and don't try to irritate anyone. Thank you! If you respond offensively on my page, I will erase it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) .

Note to interested observers: Read Talk:Mama's Family and decide for yourself. Powers 12:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Powers, I like pie. Do you? I'm forcrudating you. P.S. forcrudate : To blatantly reply off to another off his or her subject, so as to imply his comments are trivial or unnoticeable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.170 (talk • contribs) .

I thought you were slightly uncivil with the user who was complaining about the word and then thanked you for your input. Try to be a little more polite. That word he was complaining about obviously didn't belong in the article. User: ToneTare

I didn't ask for your input on my actions and comments. You asked for anyone's input on your actions and comments and you got it. Apparently you like being judged. I don't so please do not judge my actions and comments as I never asked you to —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonetare (talk • contribs) .

I apologize Powers. You never asked for anyone's input. You merely said, decide for yourself. I will change my behavior if you feel it's aggressive. Tonetare (talk • contribs) .

Your welcome. Ohh, I didn't really read that part about him using what you said to sort of gloat. I merely read the beginning where he says thank you and then I read what you wrote. I skimmed it because all of it was rather wordy. Once again, I apologize and will try to be more accurate.

whatcha up to correcting on pedia? I am lonely :)

well you were being rude just so you know. he wasn't putting words in your mouth. he was stating the word you said were correct. You had offered him some words apparently in jesting from what I read

league lists

Yes, I had noticed that, but as there were about 100 articles to fix, such a task seemed infeasible. As it stands the information is presented in the same order as it was before, minus the logos, so I will leave it to the usual editors of the articles to do the sensible thing, unless I think of a way to automate the process. ed g2s • talk 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are always several onoing discussions about fair use. ed g2s • talk 14:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I remove violations as and when I come across them. People always protest when you start, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't finish the job. ed g2s • talk 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to hear why you think the logos are of such great relevance to the league. Such a point has not been made in any of the articles. ed g2s • talk 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the users involved in making and enforcing this policy, as well as Jimbo, would disagree. ed g2s • talk 15:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They're relevant because they provide identification (the same purpose they serve on the universities' pages), ...

The teams are adequate identified by their names, see WP:FUC #1.

... allow comparison of the logos, ...

no such comparison has been made on any of the articles I've seen.

... and illustrate the team mascot and colors.

When the team is barely discussed at all, what is so important about the mascot with relation to the league? The colours can be illustrated freely. ed g2s • talk 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sports logos specifically, but he's made it clear fair use should only be used when it is of historical significance to the subject, and has intervened with our policy a number of times before. ed g2s • talk 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of identifying the team, there is a free alternative: the name of the team alone. "I'd say the logos of member teams are indeed of historical significance to an article on the league." - how so? Are you saying the certain leagues attract teams with certain types of logos, or logos from certain regions have certain themes... If you do have a point to make about this, it needs to be discussed in the article before you can think about requiring unfree media to illustrate it. ed g2s • talk 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not if the logo is not being used simply for identification of the team, e.g. Arsenal F.C.#Crest. ed g2s • talk 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well in a list of teams, you are identifying each team. In an article about the team, you are providing encyclopaedic coverage of the all aspects of the team, of which the logo is arguably a significant part of that. A lot of pages would do better to discuss the logo a bit, but the status quo is that on the relevant article, its significance is already obvious. ed g2s • talk 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not obvious at all. I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the logos are so relevant to the league. ed g2s • talk 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They are significant aspects of what is being discussed. The teams are not discussed on the league page, nor should they be, because the article's purpose is to provide information about the league. Of course some of the teams information is relevant to the league, their performance, where they play (to show the geography of the leaguue), but what point are you making about the league with the logos of the teams. ed g2s • talk 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The logo is not identifying the team on those pages, as the team as already been identified by being the subject of the article. The logo is there to show what the logo looks like, which is considered to be of significant relevance to the team. Sure, anything that is relevant to the team is of some relevance the the league, but the league article restricts itself to information that is of particular relevance, especially when it comes to unfree media, usages of which need to be minimised. ed g2s • talk 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You can play semantics with each word of the policy all day long, but we're here to create a free encyclopaedia, not game the system. Also it doesn't come down the meaning of "minimised", that was just an auxillary point so you can see where the policy is coming from. It still comes down the logos' relevance to the league not being significant or ever discussed. ed g2s • talk 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Feces

I linkimaged the picture to avoid starting an edit war again over the inclusion of that image in the article. If someone wants to see the image, they can click the link, but those who don't want to see it, don't have to. I figured this was a fair compromise - one that had been reached earlier but now seems to have been lost. Viridae^Talk 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not linkimage the rabbit feces because there had been no edit war over that one. I realise Wikipedia is no censored but as I said, doing a linkimage was an effort to avoid another edit war errupting. Viridae^Talk 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, the point is moot anyway - I am not going to change it back. If it remains stable with the image included - all the better. Viridae^Talk 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment / User conduct

Hello, Powers, my 1-week block has just recently expired and I am just here to inform you of User:JoshuaZ's recent comments, [1], which state his/her intentions to file a RfC on my name very soon. I would greatly appreciate your contributions to the RfC and thank you in advance. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 23:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Hi, I saw that you suggesting merging the above article, which was suggested a few weeks ago and wasn't acted upon. I've added alot to the article since then and i'd like to let you know the situation, I don't think there's any real need to merge the article as a whole into 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs(perhaps a synopsis), but thank you for your suggestion. Attic Owl 00:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Merge

That's the whole point of what I was saying. A merge was proposed in June [2],

And then nothing happened for over a month. Two people agreed upon a merger[3], but did not feel strong enough to actually do anything about it. Then I came in and made about 30 edits and intend to do at least 200 or so more until it's a featured article.

I'll wait a few days out of courtesy for you to find some consensus to merge without the content being it orphaned, I thought you understood from looking at the edit history that there is, nor will be, any impetus to do so. Attic Owl 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page

I hear you. I disagree believing that there will be any real interest different than before, but thanks for understanding my attachment to the article. We can wait to see which one of us is right and wait until then. Attic Owl 23:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CrazyInSane

I know that you've interacted with this user and that your interactions with him have been complicated. Pursuant it to that, letting yo know there is an RfC now regarding some his actions which you may want to comment/become involved in. I'm curious as to what you'll have to say. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrazyInSane. JoshuaZ 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Jesse Mulkey

Wikipedia:Changing username#Zenosaga --Zenosaga 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Trade magazines bot-restubbings

Those were done on the basis of being in the Category:Trade magazines hierarchy: some of the results do indeed look a bit flakey. Some of these category inclusions seem to suffer a certain "Chinese whispers" effect once one gets a few deep. If you notice any more that seem wrong, feel free to revert, or to re-tag into some other stub category, or indeed to propose more directly suitable ones. Alai 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm puzzled about that myself, looking into it now. It's possible the structure of the hierarchy has changed since the last database dump. If so, I may have to go back and change a number of affected articles... Alai 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah: the answer was not merely stranger than I imagined, but stranger than I could have imagined. It was included on the basis of the above containing Category:Business magazines, which contains Category:Fortune, which contains Category:Fortune 1000, which contains Category:Disney. Not what I intended, obviously. I'm going to go back and de-include a number that sneaked in on similar bases. Alai 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say; in my experience, a lot of these category inclusions make perfect sense at each stage, but chain five or six (or forty...) of them together, and they start looking a little weird. Not something I have immediate ambitions to fix in the short-term, at any rate. What I've done for now is to modify my script to annotate the list of articles it produces with their categories, so that I can review (and if necessary modify) it by eyeball and hand beforehand. Alai 01:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Santorum

You got it buddy. See you on the talk page. Santorummm 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

• Mea culpa - I will work on it over the next 24 hours. I will not do talk pages or project pages - as far as I am concerned they are ephemeral discussions and the navigation is there if necessary. Regards--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done I think with the above caveat. Some Winter holiday redirects I redirected to List of winter festivals and some more generic vacation and holiday break articles I redirected to Leisure as being the article I felt the reader might most likely be looking of. Feel free to change if you disagree. The edits are probably most easily reviewed by checking my recent contributions - all have edit summaries which make clear (I hope) what I was doing. Regards--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin

I apologize if I came off rude before on the Edmonton article, even though we disagree, I greatly admire what you've been doing recently to stand up to Kelly Martin (talk · contribs). He/she seems like a bully. Attic Owl 02:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

I don't understand the apparent double standard here. This Kelly Martin is allowed to be incivil, while others aren't, even when the incivility was only percieved(I still don't get how that was incivil -- that's what she/he is and is not.)Attic Owl 01:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Response To Response

1. I typed in "Kelly Martin" and Wikipedia in Google and got this link [4]. I dug a little deeper and got this thread on an anti-Wikipedia forum[5]. That along with her behavior made it seem plausible.
2. You're right. I probably should have just said she/he is not a lawyer.
3. I was under the assumption that the kid gloves were off since her/his supporters were also acting in an incivil manner.
4. I govern my life by the ethic of reciprocity. I have little to no doubt from his/her actions that he/she would not have any such regards if I were in his/her situation. Attic Owl 02:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Response To Response To Response

1. Well, it's a Wiki. Just like Wikipedia, it's not going to be perfect. The other one was called the Wikipedia Review, I believe. There's an old saying: if one person states a rumor, it's just a rumor. If ten people state a rumor, it's probably a rumor with a grain of truth to it. The fact that there are multiple people talking about that made it seem plausible.
2. In the end, you're right. I should have focused on the fact that he/she isn't a lawyer, and thus unknowledgeable about the subject of copyrights instead of losing my cool and focusing on the person's transexuality. People who wish to harm or bully others get under my skin. Attic Owl 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Feces Image

You may (or may not) want to add a keep/delete vote on this image (Human_Feces.jpg). There are some more responses now. --Cacetudo 14:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on Concert Bands

I noticed that you revised Concert Bands to move Savannah River Winds to the community bands category. This is the second revision on this, and I'm curious as to your position and justification on this. I opened a discussion on the talk section regarding band classification and have had no further discussion there. Thanks --Ezratrumpet 04:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

--Thanks for your response. I'll investigate from the tip you gave me. All the best --Ezratrumpet 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LtPowers

Hi, Powers. I've been scouring your contributions and have decided that I wanted to nominate you for administratorship. I hope that you'll accept the nom and I'm sure many will support it. By all means you have been a friendly and intelligible user as far as I'm concerned, and are well-worthy of adminship. Good luck!. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem that you declined. In fact, I think it's a responsible thing to do considering you feel that you may not have the time to dedicate to adminship. Not that I regret nominating you, you're well worthy. If you ever feel up to adminship in the future you'll have my support. Cheers. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 04:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Respect your decision to decline for the present. I do however, endorse CiS's nomination and I think you do in fact display a strong enough grasp of Wikipedia policies, community, and culture. Regards (all the better for that cup of tea :-) [6] )--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the snarky remark

Sorry for the snarky remark on United States Declaration of Independence... it was obviously a mistake in good faith and I've done as much myself. Must be more civil. -- cmh 05:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RECALL

Hi, I think you might find this policy proposal at WP:RECALL relevant, and I would be curious of your comments there and on the talk page. Thanks! rootology (T) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garfield Halloween Strips

Hi, thanks for fixing it. I must've edited an older version of the discussion when closing that. Sorry about that. - Bobet 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Moe's User Talk

Hi,

I have no qualms with the DRV or anything, but this situation is one where talking to the speedy deleter first seems like a great idea. I imagine the admin just misunderstood the right to vanish, or maybe he could confide in you the exceptional circumstance that justifies axing the page.

Up above, I see you've run afoul of Kelly Martin as well. Without knowing any other circumstances, I feel your pain. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your comment. Tyrenius 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

he thanx you for kissing his behind as you proved to be expert at. You've been following me around lately. I ignore your comments as you can see. The only reason I am here is because I know longer care about this system and I am filing a complain with the two people I had a problem with and stay the hell out of my affairs Tonetare 00:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lt, you saw exactly what was going on. Tonetare has also left a message on his talk page. It's up to him whether he takes on board other people's advice on not... But thanks again for your comment. Tyrenius 14:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank's for your help with the child pornography page

Thank's for giving more reasons as to why the page is POV in favour of child pornography. I'd like your advice on something. Pro child pornography ( or at least anti child pornography banning) POV is present in a number of articles as is pro peadophila ( not spelt correctly I know) POV. The problem is really diffcult to deal with as the POV is very carefully done, lurking more in word choice, space given and general tone than in concrete statements. There's a lot of stuff which would not constitute POV on it's own but which surely constitues POV when it's spread through the article and it's diffcult to quote any indvidual line and say "That's POV" even though the overall effect clearly is. Is it possible to organize some kind of large scale project to remove the Pro-POV from articles relating to peadophila ( not spelt correctly I know). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.111.91 (talk • contribs) .

Semaphore

• In part my take on Sempahore is based on the number of links to the pages - there are more links to the article concerning flags than there is about computers. If you say to the man on the street "semaphore" (and he knows what you are talking about), isn't he more likely to think flags if he is not in IT? (I think so) The IT link was already disambiguated, and the IT name derives from the flag code. Australian place names are automatically disambiguated, I've been to Semaphore and it would not rate as significant, it is now a suburb of Adelaide. Thus in an encyclopaedic context I think it is clear that the communication method is predominant, even if the programming method is predominant outside of the encyclopaedic context these days. Further the suggestion to move was made in 2003, and nobody disagreed, hence I have effectively acted on a 3 year old discussion point. The dab page and the main use page are set up in accordance with the style guide and many other examples of main use/other uses. Regards--Arktos ^talk 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad news and good news regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Castellana

First the bad news: I speedied Veronica Castellana as CSD A7, which was the correct thing to do; but I also speedied RN MARKET and LNC STAT, which was the wrong thing to do considering neither of them were biographies. For this I have to say I made a mistake.

Now the good news: As a result of my silly improper speedies, I've had more time to review the creator's contribs and have bundled all his other advertising creations in a even bigger, better, badder AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal Nurse Investigator. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Road stub templates

Wikipedia:Perfect stub article and Wikipedia:Find and fix a stub both redirect to WP:STUB, so there's not much point in having two out of the three in the same template; therefore I've been "consolidating" them in templates I've been editing anyway for some reason or another. (Note the model code for stub templates at WP:STUB#Creating stub template.) Not a matter of any great urgency, certainly.

As to wikiproject links: the link itself is one thing, and in cases like {{protected-area-stub}} that do this in a reasonably subtle fashion, it may be more or less fair enough (though one might question whether a link to the project space observed the principle of the least surprising result). However, statements like "Please join A Random Wikiproject" being transcluded into the article-space seems problematic in the context of WP:ASR, if not bordering on internal spam. What's more, several such stub templates have become so long that they're certain not to fit on one line of a "standard" browser window. (Ideally they'd be significantly less, since images and sidebars can cause such linewrap anyway.) I don't want stub templates getting so ugly and intrusive that people complain to "the stub people" about them (never mind whether it's WSS's fault, of course), or worse, start semi-randomly removing otherwise appropriate stub-tags for reasons of "tidying up" the article. Personally I feel that article talk pages and category pages are much more appropriate for this sort of "advertising". Alai 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, my primary motivation was to edit them for length, and intrusiveness. Perhaps I'm still in two minds about the idea of a wikiproject link being there at all, hence the inconsistency. I'll mention this at WP:STUB, and see if we can't come to some clearer consensus on whether they're within the "legitimate variation" of template coding. Alai 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD

You wrote For the record, I would not object to an actual article on the subject, if it was NPOV and well-written. This is not such an article; it is an attempt at a disambiguation page, and that's what I nominated it for deletion. AfD doesn't work that way. Wikipedia:Undeletion policy states Pages that were recently deleted in accordance with deletion policy after being listed on AFD or MD should not be listed unless new information has come to light. - I don't think there will be "new information". One could be bold, but boldness is perhaps unwise after an AfD when one has participated in the AfD and knows its decision - it would hardly be respectful of community concensus. As a result to do what you suggest, we would have to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Arktos ^talk 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney reversions

Oops. Nothing against smackbot. I was intending to revert 2 further back, to clear some dubious unsourced contributions from user 65.64.97.1 and I blew the reversion. Smackbot had simply come along at an inopportune time and I decided not to worry about it, assuming that it will eventually come around again. I've since reverted further back. If there's something I need to do about the lost smackbot edit, please let me know. studerby 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I should say, I've tried to revert further back. Either my browser is lying to me, or my edits are being dropped for some reason. Coould you check the contribs from 65.64.97.1 and revert them if you think they're inappropriate? studerby 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Something's screwy with my browser I think. The page has the right content. studerby 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh. I'm tripping over myself today, it's the edit one further back I'm trying to nuke, this diff. I'm going to stay away from the keyboard for a bit, until I can type straight... studerby 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeal

Okay, I suppose we were overzealous in at least the MascotGuy template. You can revert it if you want; I'll consider the others independently. DS 14:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Offended

Well, there's no point being offended over anything. Either someone is right in what they say, or they are wrong. If they're right, then it is helpful. If they're wrong, it needs to be corrected with all due courtesy, so that the other person can get a better understanding. Very often something is misinterpreted, or perhaps there's a bit of truth, but not the whole truth etc etc. I certainly wouldn't get on your high horse and become all indignant, because you'll probably get shot down from your high horse. Consider the merits of the remark. Have a breather. No need to reply instantly. Obviously, regardless of whether you are a Disney-phile or not, you need to examine your perspective, so that you can ensure you are maintaining NPOV. However, you have been urged to Be Bold, so that's helpful. Feel free to email, if you want to get things off your chest. Tyrenius 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS A good tack would be to enquire which of the edits in particular are a cause for concern, so that you will be able to avoid making those mistakes in future. Tyrenius 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Send me some diffs, as I don't know what to look at. I think your final post on AN/I was very measured and sensible. Tyrenius 18:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have asked me to comment on the edits you sent (and I am only commenting on those in isolation). I can see nothing but a commendable standard of discrimination, commonsense and objectivity. However, I can't pronounce on this one, as I don't know the subject.[7] I don't see any evidence of Disney POV pushing, especially as you have removed Disney references[8] and even more so here, where you have reverted to information that a pro-Disney bias would exclude.[9] I have not looked further into it than the diffs you sent, so my observations are strictly limited to them. Tyrenius 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth will out. I recommend dropping it, trusting your own judgement, believing in yourself and just getting on with the job of editing the stuff. Too much hassle over too little in this world. Tyrenius 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got that the wrong way round: you can't participate to any great extent in the community unless you have a bad reputation. :) Tyrenius 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, but, believe me, anyone with independence of mind is bound to create waves by definition. No pain, no gain, as they say. Have faith in doing the right thing. That's all you can do. Otherwise, you have a half-life. Everyone feels vulnerable and unwelcome at times, but wiki does extend a lot of tolerance. Tyrenius 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stick to editing. Policy and administration is crapwork and you don't want to do it. Trust me, it's all I do anymore.

It is, unfortunately, true that in order to become an administrator under the current RfA regime you need to be basically free of serious conflict. This is grossly unfair because administrators are, by their very nature, going to be thrust into conflicts all the time; seeing how one handles conflict is a good test for judging whether one would make a good administrator. At the moment, I have to admit that I'd probably not support you for admin, but don't take much of that: I rarely support anyone (I prefer to ignore RfA). I also wouldn't oppose you. I think you've got a bit more to go in the maturity category, but you're not too far off. The fact that you sought advice from a trusted person (Tyrenius), you listened to what was said, were willing to consider that what others were saying might have some merit, and eventually sought a middle ground, is a good sign.

Policy is pretty much irrelevant. You can ignore most of what is written down as policy; it's all either obvious or stupid. Just use common sense. Over time, your common sense actions will alter policy without you not even having to do anything special. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, as do your own observations, Lt, on yourself. It's good to know where you stand, strengths and weaknesses, and I think you display a lot of self-knowledge there. It's very pleasant just editing articles and joining in the discussions. I'm OK with the admin bit, but it's a very different experience. Tyrenius 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature, on my watchlist. No posts there about this issue. JBKramer 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that going in I was certain - CERTAIN that you were going to be the one to flip out on me for removing Important Information About Disney Merchandise. One lives and one learns, no? I suggest you leave it also - not worth headache. Allow me to suggest Special:Random. JBKramer 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: NYSRInt question

Hi Powers. I incorporated a parameter a while ago into the template that can be used for a case like this: "town_special". The usage is the exact same as "town", except that the name will not be wikified when using "town_special". See New York State Route 100C for an example of how to use "town_special" for an instance such as on NY 96. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point completely. Hopefully once I/someone adds the route description to NY 96, it'll become fairly obvious that Penfield Road is still there and that the road was NY 441's former routing prior to the '70s. If all else fails, we do have the decommissioned legend at the bottom of the table as well as the detailed note in the junction table. --TMF ^{T - C} 01:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pooh articles

I actually think a split of the articles to move much of the franchise-related content to somewhere else would be a good idea. Right now the Disney Pooh franchise discussion is spread over several articles, and it ruins all of them in my opinion. The Disney characters are so significantly distinct from the Milne originals that they might as well be separate articles (which is why I object strongly to the representation of this as a "POV split"; it's a content split, dammit). The current articles are VERY Disney-centric and I think that they suffer as a result. I'd be more than willing to discuss with you how we can make the articles more acceptable to everyone, as long as that discussion is in an appropriate place (i.e. not the Administrator Noticeboard, and certainly not AfD!)

A lot of people have subtle biases that they are not aware of. You have a lot of interest in Disney, and I doubt you would do so if you weren't at least somewhat appreciative of their content. Not everyone is; many people are very much unhappy with the way Disney alters stories. Winnie-the-Pooh is one of the most prominent examples of this. The problem with the articles as they were a few days ago is that they are almost entirely about the Disney renditions; other renditions are entirely submerged under the huge piles of Disney-related dross. That's great if we're trying to write an encyclopedia strictly of early 21st century culture, but bad if we want an encyclopedia of everything -- which includes, strangely enough, a great deal content not generated by Disney. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to neutralize the Piglet article. After reading the character articles and discussing it with others whose opinion I trust, I decided that the best way to deal with the issues presented by those articles is to reserve the character articles for the A.A. Milne characters and move information about the animated versions and the surrounding phenomena to other articles. Someone whose opinion I trust suggested the name for the article that covers the Disney Piglet and I made the others based from that. I am in no way in love with the name if that is what is offensive. Nor have I completed the creation of seperat aricles or added the categories, redirects etc. that will make it easy for the reader to navigate through to find what he or she seeks.

I do know that as it stood, there was no way to find out about just about the A. A. Milne characters of Piglet or Eeyore etc., which is frustrating because the Disney versions are so far from the originals. I do not think it will be possible to keep the information about the book characters and the information about the Disney versions delineated unless the articles are separate. It seems to me further delineation may be needed to separate the animated characters from the full collectible merchandizing phenomena.

The key here is that when complete, those looking for Disney's Pooh and those looking for Milne's Pooh can easily find accurate, neutral, verifiable information about the topic they are interested in.Lkinkade 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the above suggestions have a lot of sense: separate articles on the separate incarnations of the characters, because they are essentially separate subjects. There could also be an article that examines the whole evolution of the different characters with the usual links to the specialised articles. I would recommend accepting Kelly Martin's generous offer to provide her extensive experience as an editor and letting her be the guide on this occasion, as it would be a valuable learning experience. However, I think she is a little hard on you by equating your strong interest with an inherent POV, as the two are not intrinsic to each other, and your editorial decisions I have seen are not POV. Tyrenius 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just make more sense to have an extra chapter in each of those pages entitled "Disney's Representation". And besides the pages are so small. Maybe it wwould make more sense if the pages were larger but at their current size? Please.Eeyore1993 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eeyore1993 (talk • contribs) .

I think I see why you're called Eeyore. Now let me get this right: you want larger pages but for them to be at their current small size? :)

The extra section (chapter) is one option. There is a body of opinion that thinks it is probably not the best option for reader requirements, because readers will probably want to home in on their particular favourite incarnation of the Pooh.

Tyrenius 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe Eeyore meant "Maybe it would make more sense if the pages were larger. But at their current size? Please." Anyway, I'd like to direct the discussion to Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh. =) Powers ^T 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

87sf e[rme]r4 454 m4454=-0 d,'GB 34NUWH;493745S.?? bUT GOod idea to move to Pooh talk! Tyrenius 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wha? Powers ^T 23:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your explanation left me no wiser I'm afraid. What did Eeyore mean? I trust I'm not being particularly thick here. Tyrenius 00:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's try "Maybe splitting the pages would make more sense if each page was larger. Splitting them considering their current sizes, though? That doesn't make sense." Powers ^T 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I've just got it. I thought "But at their current size?" meant "Let's keep them at their current size, please", whereas I now see it actually means, "Let's not keep them at their current size, please". Amazing. Cheers. Tyrenius 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, no I did not. I saw it linked somewhere and just assumed it was recent. Everyking 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kermit the Frog

I removed that Kermit D. Lohry information because Lohry doesn't appear to be notable enough to mention in the article. —tregoweth (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

State Routes Convention Poll

Hey, I agree with you 100 percent. I think that New Jersey should follow in line with P1. But it's getting to the point where it's beyond ridicule. That's why I suggested just allowing NJ to do its thing, much like Kansas or Michigan. I do agree that this could open a pandora's box, however.

It's too bad that this whole situation has occurred. One can only hope it will be resovled soon. --myselfalso 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Forshame

I think you'll find that you attacked JarlaxleArtemis.

FORSHAME!

Jamo 02:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Mirabeau

User:Wiki Mirabeau tried to nominate JaraxleArtemis for RfA without that user's permission or acceptance, actually nominated an indef blocked sockpuppet/imposter of the user, has eight edits - three of which are speculation on the motivations of vandals [10] and one an article likely heading for deletion- and declared an intention to continue to nominate people for RfA. How many users do you know who nominate a previously blocked user with no interest in the RfA process after seven edits? I am highly confident that this account was created for the sole purpose of trolling Wikipedia, and am happy to say that Tony Sidaway agrees. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Gwernol 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Puzzle Pirates Bludgeon List

In response to your question about why I felt the need to change hooks and broken bottles to hammers and chains, I did so for the following 2 reasons. For one, the gaff is the hook, and gaff was already mentioned so I found it repetitive. And secondly, broken bottles are not available bludgeons, so I replaced it with an existing bludgeon. The list did display a wide variety, and except for those two items, it was a good example. These are the reasons why I decided to make those two minor changes. EDIT: I'm sorry, but I didn't know about the special event bludgeons...but I do stand that it requires a great amount of skill to aquire one, and they shouldn't be grouped in with common ones. Faranya 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement!

Thanks for your kind words about There's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow. It's nice that someone noticed. I'm hoping to do the same for Marty Sklar, but I need to find and read/watch more sources first. Karen | Talk | contribs 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome. Borox 01:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

TareTone

Sorry for cursing you out but your behavior is very nosy and meddlesome on wikipedia. I can get along better with you if you'd not follow me around so much and bother me TareTone 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My behavior was only horrible for cursing you out, other than that I don't think anything I did was horrible. What I am saying is you have something in common with Charlesknight and that's going into people's history. I assume you do that quite a bit. You got involved in my arguments, my discussion page stuff, and apparently you had been reading the entire exchanges between me and Tyrenius as you said Tyrenius has shown much patience to me. You were not involved in that so you really shouldn't have commented on that. I just think if you refrain from getting involved especially in private things, I will be less upset with you and be able to work amicably with you. TareTone 18:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. you even have my talk page on your watch list? Powers! lol! I mean, that is what I am talking about. No wonder lots of places I went, I ended up seeing your name. Anyways, don't you think it's a little unusual to keep a user on your watch list rather than just come here to edit your favorite pages. It's not as you and are friendly. I mean, we had a polite discussion about the Mama's Family. I don't think that exactly made us friends. I just think it's normal for a user to keep friends on their watch list. I feel like someone is keeping watch over me, especially when their remarks are in lots of the places I'm at. TareTone 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to be offensive or anything, I am just saying. yea, it's normal for you and Tyrenius. You two may be friends but good grief. I mean, do you think you and I are or were? be honest? TareTone 01:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool, cool! Thanx for responding. Everythings cool now. I just have one question. I am curious. What made you put me on your watchlist. Like, why did you choose me. You chose me. I am just curious as to why me and not another user? Oh by the way, after you tell me, I have a confession to make to you TareTone 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. well, happy editing TareTone 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

Do you like my edits on sexual intercourse. I don't know why they said penetration with the penis instead of penetration of the penis. TareTone 05:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I was expecting an 'lol', not that response. But anyway, the heck? The correct term is 'of.' Penetration OF the penis is BY the human. Not BY the penis. : / TareTone 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Powers, I don't understand. Explain to me of. : / I guess we have to agree to disagree because I'm confused as to your position. I really don't see how penetration of the penis could mean it's being penetrated. I'm trying to but just of sounds like it works better than by. To me, by sounds like the penis is pushing something. Oh well, maybe we're splitting hairs but never hurts to learn new things TareTone 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but penetration of the penis always had to have that ending of by. I wasn't using that ending. It always had to have by something else at the end to make it clear that it was the penis is being penetrated. Alone, it just sounds like the penis is doing the penetrating. For instance, "the laughing of the teachers was rude!" It just sounds like the teachers are laughing. It doesn't really sound like the teachers are being laughed at in less you say, "the laughing of the teachers was rude by the children." Oh wait a minute, 'the laughing of the teachers!" You're right! It does sound like the teachers are being laughed at. "The laughing of the teachers was inappropriate." Wow, I guess my argument for you proved me wrong. LOL!!! I wasn't really arguing. I was trying to get a better understanding. Thank you for my better understanding OF 'OF', Powers. ;) I enjoyed, I enjoyed TareTone 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Sugarpinet/c 03:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Wings

The Mets will clinch it soon enough...thankfully as the Red Wings completely tanked it through games 4 and 5 against Toledo. Cheers, TMF ^{T - C} 05:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I admit, I had the Red Wings page open with the text "Lost to Toledo" in place by the top of the 9th inning, and once the game ended, I pressed "save page" right then and there. =) --TMF ^{T - C} 05:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I-590

I-590 got a bad assessment when it was assessed en masse along with most of the other Interstate articles. I've reassessed it and made the change to B-class. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 16:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I cannot believe that both Marketplace and Eastview Malls were taken to AfD. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1964 New York World's Fair

Good point! Done. :) jengod 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

True...I better check if I did that for any earlier world's fairs ;) Tim! 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Princesses of Heart

Maybe it's your browser? Redirects leading to sections work for me, actually...—ウルタプ 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's because I lost all my Firefox cookies, history, etc. yesterday when I shut off the computer incorrectly, but now it only works through pop-ups and clicking the actually link on the redirect page.—ウルタプ 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all.—ウルタプ 01:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. R.J. Herie 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too!

I've posed a protocol question on my own talk page that you might like to help with. Cheers, Fayenatic london 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And me as well. DeVaro 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. :D Tiakalla 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Linkspam

Thanks for the message. I don't mind that you readded it. Most of the other 30 or so ELs to stageagent.com that I deleted have been readded today, unsurprisingly, by User:Stageagent. Oh, well.

I don't revert twice or re-insert/re-delete the same EL or text twice, because I've found that the community generally will back whatever version is appropriate (although it may take weeks or months for that to occur). It looks like spam to me, but others may disagree and that's fine. Thanks again for the message. KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The hatnot on Rick Santorum page

is now back! I do not know what they are, or do, and I don't remember even thinking it should be removed. Other than my husband, who doesn't do wiki, noo ne should be able to get in under my name. CApitol3 22:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Hi, the edit desc. sounds like there was a plan, I don't know what though. CApitol3 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaq vs. Jacques

My source for Jacques is when the mouse character in references in the Cinderella Wikipedia entry: [[11]]. jodamiller 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess the Wikipedia reference is incorrect. Also, I've not recieved messages on Wikipedia before and wasn't sure if I edited the entry in my talk page if you'd see it. What's the proper procedure for replying to comments in one's talk page? jodamiller 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comic Strip Lord

The guy was doing a rather strange mix of good edits and pure nonsense. He'd gone on a real vandalism spree, as I recall. Strange what people do on this site as witnessed by that fool who tried spreading a worm via the German wiki. - Lucky 6.9 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind unblocking him if you think an indef ban is too much. It's just that we've been getting hammered with some real nonsense as of late. - Lucky 6.9 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You got it. In fact, I just finished unblocking the account. I'd been thinking about this account for awhile, but I didn't remember the user name. I tried to e-mail him, but he didn't leave an address. I hope he comes back. Thanks for the very timely message. - Lucky 6.9 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for pointing out my accidental deletion of an entire paragraph. I have no idea how it happened, but I fixed it. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ...for the very warm welcomeYashtulsyan 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks Again!

207.74.23.130

Blocked for vandalising Talk:Vietnam_War, after prior warnings from other editors for vandalising other pages that same day. Cripipper 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Breakfast at Tiffany's

Thanks for contacting me my: error in trying to delete this article. I tried to follow the directions you sent me, but I believe I've done it incorrectly yet again. I would appreciate your righting my wrong if you don't mind. Thanks for your assistance! SFTVLGUY2 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, many thanks! Eventually I hope to learn all of Wikipedia's technical intricacies. SFTVLGUY2 15:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Spirogyra

It may not have made sense, but I don't think it was intentional vandalism, simply someone adding some representative species to the genus. It probably should have been removed, but not called vandalism. KP Botany 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, newbie, sorry, I see. KP Botany 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Human Feces.jpg

I understand why you tagged Image:Human Feces.jpg as a "bad image". Could I persuade you to free it up for use on the Feces and Human feces articles (the articles listed in the "File links" section of the image page)? I'm a little curious why you didn't do that automatically, but here's the request anyway. Powers ^T 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are NOT using reliable sources

Don't even bother adding back that sentence about PV's main mission.

WP:RS states that blogs and chatrooms (both of which you used) are generally NOT reliable sources. WhisperToMe 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When you posted the statement saying that the Perverted Justice site is mainly about hurting perverts, your only sources were a screenshot of a chat room and a blog post. You need a published source (i.e. Wired, etc.) to back up that claim. WhisperToMe 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry! Lemme look at the logs and determine who posted that... WhisperToMe 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perverted-Justice.com&diff=78889036&oldid=78810773 - Oh, this was the edit I was talking about... that wasn't what I had in mind, though. There was a different addition that was problematic... WhisperToMe 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perverted-Justice.com&diff=79922412&oldid=79006620 <-- THIS was the bad edit! WhisperToMe 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Disney's Nine Old Men

Upon reading the article more thoroughly, you're right. I removed the magazine disclaimer.

I thought it read like a magazine because there were some bits of slang and descriptions made up by the writer ("he was the best animator in the studio", "he made many wonderful scenes and fine animated features over the years" "a unique squashy and stretchy feel"), but the article itself is informative and formal enough to not be mistaken for journalism.

And come to think of it, it's naive to think that Milk Kahl wasn't one of the best Disney animators ever... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UberMan5000 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Greetings from CIS!

Season's Greetings from CrazyInSane! How have you been? I see you're taking a wikibreak as well! Wow, I haven't been here since August and it's great! Just wanted to let you know I'm back until 25 December, and that I look forward to working with you during this period of time if you're available. I've already made some edits, moving Christmastime greetings to Winter holiday greetings, and am looking forward to getting in the editing mood this holiday season!. Anyways, if you don't respond in time then have a Merry Christmas, and a great New Year 2007!.. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, KillerChihuahua just messed the article up, apparently because I made a mistake and didn't move the page properly. I'm not used to Wikipedia anymore:). It used to mention both Season's Greetings and Happy Hanukkah, but I think I need an administrator to properly move it again. You can see Chihuahua's comments on my talk page.. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 12:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I already moved it, I had to undo what you'd done in order to make it work. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but see the question I asked on CiS's talk page about not mentioning "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Hanukkah", even though they redirect to Winter holiday greetings. The article used to mention "season's greetings", but slrubenstein removed that section back in July. I think CiS was implying that the confusion over the page move somehow disrupted the content, but a look at the page history indicates that's not the case. Powers ^T 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Hanukkah was a redirect to Hanukkah before CIS changed it; I have changed it back. Dunno what to do about Season's Greetings, perhaps we should discuss on the talk page for wider input? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the usual method, yes. =) It's a sticky situation, though, impacting as it does Christmas controversies. Powers ^T 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Hi Powers,

You recently supported Kelly Martin's bid for Arbitration Committee member. While you certainly have every right to vote for whomever you choose (and should!), the end of your message stated "I am saddened by the multitudes of knee-jerk oppositions below." I assure you, my vote was not a "knee-jerk" vote of opposition; I feel a member of ArbCom must at least exhibit a modicum of common sense that I believe KM certainly did not exhibit during the "b-list" (and "Q-list", and "R-list") creations, which stands out in my mind as very poor judgement. I also believe this user has been very incivil in the past. My number one requirement for an RFA candidate is civility; why would I expect any less of an ArbCom candidate? Many other individuals have given valid reasons for opposing this candidate, those who haven't stated specific reasons probably don't need to beat a dead horse at this point; judging by the comments, this user has lost the trust of nearly the entire Wikipedia community. I really wish you hadn't made the statement "I am saddened by the multitudes of knee-jerk oppositions below."; it implies the reasons vast numbers of people are objecting are "knee-jerk", unworthy reasons. And of the 150+ oppose votes, no one has stated the supporters are "knee-jerk" support votes, so there was no reason for that comment. I'm' saddened you can't see why 150 people might object, even strenuously object, to a candidate, without casting doubt on the fact those reasons may be entirely valid, and not at all "knee-jerk". Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Not That It'll Make a Heck of a Lot of Difference To You, but...

Here are some awesome articles I thought you'd be interested in reading. You learn something new every day!

• Compromise
• Devil's advocate
• Accessibility
• Consideration

Censorship is not welcome on Wikipedia, but it's hardly censorship to link certain images when they invoke a natural, physical repulsion in so many viewers. Especially when the image is so gratuitous and not at all informative to begin with. Not delete, just take an extra click for those who really want to see it. It would be a lot more fair to those who, like 99% of people visiting the article for educational purposes, just want the factual information about the subject and not graphic insight into a specific Wikipedia editor's digestive system. --LeCorrector 20:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Poo

Well, I can see you're at it for a reason. From the talk page and constant reversions, I assumed you were just having fun with people. I do think linking an image is worth consideration when it is both controversial and extraneous. If it were in any way helpful to graphically illustrate the subject matter, I could understand not setting up hoops for people to jump through just to protect the squeamish. But since the squeamish in this instance are so many, and there isn't a soul on earth who needs the visual aid, I think theres a strong case for linking. --LeCorrector 07:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr. merit his own wiki-page?

As you were a contributor to the article Battle of Ong Thanh please consider joining the discussion at this link on whether the American leader of the battle Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr. who died in the fighting is notable enough to deserve his own wiki-page. I intend to enlarge the article but it was speedily deleted within an hour of its creation and now after much discussion it has been undeleted but is under review whether it should be allowed to continue to exist. Originally the person who deleted it placed the following on the Afd discussion page

Persons claim to fame is being the son of a famous US General. He became Lt. Col. (probably with a little help from his daddy), cockily chased some charlies in Vietnam, and got killed in the resulting ambush together with his unit. After his death he had some media coverage due to his famous daddy. Also, his wife left him for a rodeo clown. Two books available and one movie upcoming about the battle. In my opinion borderline notability at best, but as always i am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Thankfully he has been talked into revising this statement to be less insulting but I feel there is much bias against this article for no logical reason - right now the article is just a stub but its hard to expand something if you think its just going to be deleted.--Wowaconia 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

KIDS INC

Why in the world did you delete a category?74.195.3.199 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)