Misplaced Pages

User talk:Erachima

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erachima (talk | contribs) at 14:57, 4 December 2006 (prep for archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:57, 4 December 2006 by Erachima (talk | contribs) (prep for archiving)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Archive

Archives

01 Perm. link 1
02 Perm. link 2
03 Perm. link 2
04 Perm. link 2
05 Perm. link 2

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 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is clear you have had problems understanding Misplaced Pages 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 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I would second that - please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages by adding bogus warning to people's talk pages. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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"." - Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 ]. 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)

Background on Terryeo

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

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 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Er, I don't FEEL uncalm...

re Misplaced Pages: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)

Thanks

I'm not sure, how about this one?

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

The Halo's RfA

tjstrf...
Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support.
tjstrf, thank you so much for your wonderful supporting statement. Seeing that up there was wonderful, and brought a smile to my face. Thank you very, very much my friend :)
Yours, Thε Halo 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey tj, thanks for the encouragement ;) Thε Halo 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Contradict

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

Hey Thanx

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

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)

Thanks

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

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). Misplaced Pages is not responsible for links to outside sites. Give me a break, please.--Jreem22 07:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages and MUD chat programs... Yes, very arrogant of me. Cheers! --tjstrf 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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: . 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. ), falsely accusing and generally disagreeing with both editors. Jayjg 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 . --Ben Houston 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My user pages

Let me explain. I edit Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 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 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 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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 . 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 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 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Misplaced Pages: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 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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/search/?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81970320&oldid=81968853

Not a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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/search/?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=81969852&oldid=81968853

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 Misplaced Pages: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)

+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)

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)

Redwall Characters

Well, what I said on Misplaced Pages: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)

My RfA

Announcement: It's an administrator!

Tjstrf, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

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)

User:Kisshu

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

NPA

And why was this only issued to me. You can tell by his comments at Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Blue Wildebeest

thanks for your interest in this article. In the literature and especially on Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages 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)

Speedy Close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Librarians in popular culture

There was nothing wrong with speedy closing that discussion. See Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Happy Birthday !!!!

File:Esperanza.Birthday.gif
Esperanzian New Rock Star wishes you a Happy Birthday!!

Happy Birthday !!!!! --NRS | /M\ 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)

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)

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)

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)

tfd

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

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)

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. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

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

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) .

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)

Template db-meta

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

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)

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 "Misplaced Pages 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. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Also note the accusations against Jimbo in that same thread , where he claims that Wales leaves flaws in Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Why did you remove Advert3?

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

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.

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 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping to delete the Nell Tu article as well. -- Ynhockey 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.

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)

Naruto

They're synonymous. --tjstrf talk 06:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Not in most dictionaries, they're not. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster disagrees.--tjstrf talk 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
MOST. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Do most dictionaries exclude titular from having the meaning "Of, derived from, or having to do with a title"?
By strict definition, titular, eponymous, and nominal are all synonyms. The connotation of each is slightly different, but their meanings are identical. Nominal is unacceptable in this context though, because of its connotation skin-deep. That leaves us with two options, titular and eponymous. Since the subject at hand is a children's television series titular is imo preferable to eponymous because it is the less esoteric term. --tjstrf talk 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But it's still an encyclopedia and it should use the correct word. However, I agree that it should just be title character instead of titular or eponymous, since there's no real reason it shouldn't be title character. In fact, awhile back, I changed it to title character, and someone reverted it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Titular is the correct word. But the article link being at title character trumps that. --tjstrf talk 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the reason for title character going to titular is because the Princeton site says it's the correct term, while research on my own behalf showed that most dictionaries mean title as in "Bishop" etc, not the title of a literary work. I had the discussion about the redirect somewhere. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So, by the wording used in the article, I'm assuming we went with the term "title character?" --Iriseyes 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Everyone can agree on that being a correct term, (though I don't think anyone prefers it to their own personal view) and it's even simpler to understand than "titular" is. --tjstrf talk 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello whoever you are, your buddy deleted MY page which I was working on without ever notifying me that he had marked it for deletion.

I was working on the page... ya know editing it. Makeing it better,... I will proceed to report your buddy to whoever it is that ya report people too. Thanks for the warning.

I don't know how this talk thing works.

I spent a very long time creating an article called The Wheel of Buddhist Terms. I have the copyrightholders permission to create the article and you can find it by searching with google.

I AM WORKING ON MY PAGE AND YOUR STUPID TAGS WERE NOT RELEVANT WHEN I CLICKED SAVE PAGE BECAUSE I HAD INCLUDED REFRENCES STAY THE **** OFF MY PAGE.

Go Away, I am working on the page. Tradeskillsllc 11:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be shouting about The Wheel of Buddhist Terms. That's no more your page than it is TJstrf's or mine: see WP:OWN. If you don't like this, you're in the wrong place. -- Hoary 14:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was editing the page when you jumped in with your idiotic anal edits encyclopedia artilces are not written instantainously and you have harrased me enough I am reporting you.

Tradeskillsllc 11:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you calm down before reporting anything anywhere. -- Hoary 14:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Hiya, I was interested in your opinions at the Village pump, about WikiProjects. May I have permission to copy your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), in our RfC section? Or would you be interested in popping in yourself? Your thoughts could be very useful to the discussion. Thanks, --Elonka 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wouldn't want to risk quoting you out of context, so I'll hold off then. If you do want to offer an opinion though, you're more than welcome, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment.  :) --Elonka 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Fire Emblem External Links

Please stop vandalizing the external links. Thank you.

Stop spamming them with your fansite then. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop acting like your opinion on whether they are spam or not is important. It is not MY site at all. I'm just a Fire Emblem fan who feels it's a great and helpful resource. Thank you.
My opinion is backed by policy and the consensus of other editors. You don't own it? Good. Stop spamming your favorite fansite then. --tjstrf talk 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Other editors? Oh, like the half dozen editors who added it in the first place? And where is your policy here? Fire Emblem World has tons of information and features, and was one of the first on the external links list (check the records way back).
Sites which violate copyright (via distribution of sprite rips and music), web communities, and fansites are all discouraged or forbidden links. --tjstrf talk 09:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, you have done no research here and are simply deleting based on biased. To say that "Fire Emblem English Documentary is qualified and Fire Emblem World isn't" is absurd. LOOK ON THE MAIN PAGE OF FIRE EMBLEM ENGLISH DOCUMENTARY! You'll see a link to sprites and music. I guess I'm off to remove that site from the external links then. But you're no longer qualified to edit Misplaced Pages if you remove one link for something another link has also done but allow the other link to remain because of your biased. Thank you.
Then remove it as well. I didn't check every link on the page, the Fire Emblem Planet link was only brought to my attention by your overloud edit summary accusations of vandalism. As for qualification to edit, failing to fix one thing when you fix another is not a flaw, it's an oversight. We don't outlaw oversights here. --tjstrf talk 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

US Authorities editing proessionally on Misplaced Pages issue

Hi Tjstrf,

I had replied to your remarks at the village pump and then found myself on your user page. After reading your profile I was surprised to see you not take such an issue seriously. Like you I too value the level-headed, good writiers and community conforming editors we have here on Misplaced Pages: and so many of them too. But to have editors who are paid to push a particular pont-of-view goes against Misplaced Pages's very purpose. You yourself even say you "think it is the responsibility of those with little or no affiliation with controversial subjects to edit their articles in a responsible manner. Clearly editors hired by the pentagon have an affiliation. How can they make a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages? I don't mean to be confrontational, but the is an issue that concerns me a lot. --Cplot 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic J templates

Why my talk page? Anyway, Izak's concern stems from the traditional approach of evangelizing groups of pretending to be a valid part of Judaism by expropriating jewish dress/custom/observances/speech/names/food/etc. and putting this facade of Christian context, in order to make it easier to swallow. The obvious concern is that they got to Misplaced Pages as well... - crz crztalk 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NotJudaism

the template has been deleted....thank god. MetsFan76 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I see that now. Looks like one of the admins was on the ball tonight. --tjstrf talk 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure, but I think they ripped a lot of Judaism articles and nav templates and edited them to fit their thing. Compare:

{{Judaism}}{{Messianic Judaism}}

Essentially, a marketing scam. Come, Jews, check out Judaism... er... Messianic Judaism. Instead of simply calling it Christianity, which would earn them zero converts. - crz crztalk 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a disclaimer template

Hi Tjstrf: you should have discussed the issue first. That was not a a "disclaimer" template as it was not disclaiming anything it was stating what may not seem evident: That even though some articles may seem to have the words "Judaism" and subjects related to it in them, they are in no way connected to normative Judaism at all because (and this I left out) they actually belong to Christianity which is an entirely different religion and thus the article itself may be a deception to the novice reader. Would you prefer that I put the standard Christianity templates into those articles instead, which they should have. Kindly consider your moves before you make them. Thanks. IZAK 06:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey kid - don't be rude to me again

--SandyDancer 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I made any comments directed at you, let alone rude ones. I also congratulate you on being the 6th person to bring up my age for no reason whatsoever, it reflects wonderfully on your reasoning. --tjstrf talk 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So not five minutes ago on Talk:William Connolley when you made this comment immediately after SandyDancer's comment, were you talking about SandyDancer, yes or no?

I agree that William Connolley is a vanity page. If you disagree - shoot me. --SandyDancer 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) From all appearances, the people who show up whining about this article are trying to get some sort of passive-aggressive retribution on the user. He passes notability as determined by 3 AfD's and WP:PROF. We don't care if you dislike him, get a life and make some productive edits elsewhere. --tjstrf talk 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't addressing Sandy, I was addressing the topic as a whole. I tried to represent that by unindenting it so that it wasn't formatted as a reply to anything in specific. --tjstrf talk 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's just that it strongly resembled a personal attack and was at least somewhat intemperate in tone. In what sense for example do we all need to "get a life"? What exactly did you mean by "people who show up whining"? These are insulting remarks and as you have just confirmed you were talking about all of us who contribute to that talk page, I feel personally offended both for myself and for the other editors you just insulted. Perhaps you might consider an apology and toning it down a little? MarkThomas 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh Apologetic....

Heh I guess I can be softie however I'm not so sure that I reflect as tender hearted with vandals. I simply wanted to explain in a respectful manner to the user that regardless we cannot discriminate the contents of Misplaced Pages. Anyways I took a look through your contribs and I must say you deserve this:

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I, Persian Poet Gal, award you this barnstar for tirelessly contributing to Misplaced Pages policy pages, articles for deletions, vandalism reverts, and practically everywhere else on Misplaced Pages! ¤~Persian Poet Gal 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tjstrf, I see you helped MONGO.

<personal attack on User:MONGO's "coheerency" removed.> --ILOVEMONGO 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I'm being thanked by the conspiracy troll. How rewarding. --tjstrf talk 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Recluses

What's wrong with "recluses"? All of them are included as examples in the article.

Would "people considered recluses" be better? Daniel Case 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that conveys the idea as well. What, exactly, is wrong with "recluse"? Semantics? I have thought of creating a category "Notable recluses" or something like that, under which being included would result in images automatically not being considered replaceable.

How about "recluses or others who purposefully evade the public eye"? Daniel Case 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone else has been busy copyediting the page. So, as a compromise, I added "generally referred to in the mainstream media as recluses", to distance us from any negative connotations (I don't consider it derogatory when applied to celebrities, but I'm aware there are different attitudes to it). Daniel Case 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Erachima Add topic