User talk:Orangemike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Orange 2 ? 3 Akemi2.0 4 No recent warnings 5 Prechter's bio 6 HI! 7 Lonergan play and Frank Zappa 8 Sposer 9 Edward Freeman 10 Re: Template change to my archive 11 Hi Mike 12 The charismatic Dr. M.L. King, Jr. 12.1 Threatened rewrite 12.2 Category: Charismatic religious leaders 13 Sorry 14 Spam? 15 Florence Reece 16 Tropikal Magik 17 What test? 18 Reversions in "Affirmative action" 19 Correcting spelling 20 Spamming 21 SciFi Science Fiction 22 Reply 23 Jeffrey Dahmer 24 White Unicorn Books 25 Talk: Science Fantasy and Comix 26 Substing

[edit] Orange

Is there ever a conflict between being orange and having Irish ancestry? I'm not trying to score or make a point, it's just that in certain parts of Ireland, orange is a rather controversial colour Bill Tegner 13:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm painfully aware of that! I had to tone down my usual wardrobe when I visited the republic (and the six counties, where my family came from) in 1990. But there's a reason the republic uses the tricolor: the orange, and the green, and the white for peace between us. I am a Protestant, in that I'm a Quaker; but I don't wear the color to make any kind of politic, ethnic, religious or ideological statement: I just like it for the brightness and the way it makes me feel. To quote a LiveJournal posting I read this morning: "Orange is jolly and nutritious. Purple is for goths who can't commit to black." --Orange Mike 13:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are so right. I get a bit sad when I read that the Irish tricoleur might offend northern Protestants. It could well do, but as you say, it's got their colour on it. I suppose their reply might be that the Union Jack has the flag of St. Patrick on it, but that no longer means much to people. Bill Tegner 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1) I've been told that unionists (in the Irish sense) refer to the tricolor as gold and green, in an effort to deny what the orange is meant to represent; 2) from my studies in vexillology and heraldry, I understand that the "Cross of St. Patrick" was made up almost out of whole cloth (unlike the St. Andrew's Cross and St. George's Cross) in order to represent Ireland in the creation of the Order of St. Patrick (see Saint Patrick's Flag). --Orange Mike 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

what test sr? I cant rember doing a test! I think you got the wrong person/editor! it happens to everybody! goodluck finding the test person!--Akemi2.0 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the inane remarks you are sticking into the Anime article. --Orange Mike 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What? im doing what im here to do! Improve the artical! first someone says edit and now you say stop editing or it will be removed!

im not doing anything!--Akemi2.0 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The two edits you made were both useless: inane and ungrammatical to the point of near-illiteracy, just like what you are putting on my page here. --Orange Mike 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop being so damn mean devil man! I know dang well those edits were useful! Its useful info! ITS INFO! You want info i give you info! Hop of my foot already im new!--Akemi2.0 16:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Escúchame, ese! Material added to this encyclopedia must be clearly stated, in the appropriate place, properly documented, and in clear grammatical English (or whatever language whose encyclopedia you are editing), properly spelled. Your two remarks met none of these criteria. --Orange Mike 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you ornage sr--Akemi2.0 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we all gotta start somewhere! You just jumped in a little too early. You need to learn to use your shift key, for one thing! :) Standards here are intended to be as high as those one would use if writing for a print encyclopedia, not the casual style used for texting to one's posse. --Orange Mike 16:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akemi2.0

I understand. I wasn't trying to say you couldn't or shouldn't help him, but based on his edit history (and the time that Akemi2.0 was created) it's a near certainty that they're the same user. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Hopefully he's not, and we can net a constructive user. Leebo ^T/C 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No recent warnings

Thank you for your recent posting of an anonymous editor to Administrators intervention against vandalism. In the future though, when reporting IP addressed to WP:AIV, please make sure that they have had a final warning in the recent past. Due to the nature of IP addresses, spans of time between edits may indicate different users. Being it is possible that the currently vandalizing user did not get a true final warning they are often not be blocked. To remedy this, please make an effort to ensure that all vandals reported to WP:AIV have an appropriate, and recent, final warning. The most common final warnings are {{test4}} or {{bv}}. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to ask me on my user talk page. Thanks again!-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prechter's bio

Hey Orangemike,

I'm glad that you want to contribute to Prechter's bio -- I know that you will be a neutral editor. About the Colvin quote, my read of of WP:BLP is that ridicule is out of bounds. This came up repeatedly in the Arbitration case that just closed, and the ruling was decisively against that type of invective. Please see here and here. I look forward to working with you. Rgfolsom 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

However: the arbitration ruling did not say that no harsh criticisms of Prechter may be quoted; and that seems to be the stance you are taking. That is a POV stance, and must be avoided. --Orange Mike 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I trust that you realize that I'm also trying to keep a neutral stance, and I'm aware how important it is for me to do so. Can I ask if you read the links I included? Rgfolsom 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You bet! (And I do wish to point out that while you dislike the Colvin quote, you did not delete it as I feared, displaying restraint which is worthy of note.) --Orange Mike 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I see that you did read it. There's a difference between ridicule and harsh criticism -- you yourself noted the "ridicule," which the Arb Com did say is not acceptable. Rgfolsom 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely will show restraint with an editor working in good faith, which is more than clear in your case. If I find a tough criticism that doesn't cross the line into ridicule, are you okay with me putting such a quote in place of Colvin? Rgfolsom 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Colvin is not ridiculing (if that's the right verb) Prechter, he is ridiculing the entire genre of wave theorists (in the original article, he identifies this as less foolish [by his judgment] than other such theories). I think that if their theories are sound, a little rough criticism is not going to kill them. The Colvin quote is rough, but within the boundaries; and keeps the article from being criticized as a puff piece. I'd advise you to let it go and concentrate on other matters. --Orange Mike 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC) does OK on paper himself

I had the impression that you did see Colvin's remark as ridicule, especially since that was the word you used to introduce the quotes. I can't go along with the "laughably terrible" phrase about Prechter's forecasts, not only because it's ridicule but also because it invites a reply showing Prechter's numerous excellent forecasts since 1987 -- but I would prefer to avoid that. Can you please answer my question about a replacement quote? Rgfolsom 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Colvin is not Prechter's (or E wave theory's) harshest critic by any means; it was the even harsher ones I was referring to. I think you should let this go and go on to make other articles better, rather than thrash about looking for a less harsh quote. To do otherwise could suggest that you are acting in a partisan manner, possibly due to COI. --Orange Mike 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given you no reason to bring up COI, Orangemike. I've identified what I believe is a real problem and I'm suggesting a real solution. That's not thrashing about; it's what one editor does out of respect for another editor. The Aaronson quote that's on the EWP, for example, is tough indeed. Would you find that acceptable? Rgfolsom 16:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they are pretty much of a muchness, the Aaronson and the Colvin, either one would do as well; and I still say you should let it go. --Orange Mike 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm going to put the Aaronson quote in place of Colvin. Please know that I appreciate you bearing with me on this, I do not wish to try your patience. My reasons are grounded in the guidance I took from the Arb ruling, but I'll not burden you with the particulars unless you want me to spell it out. Thanks again. Rgfolsom 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HI!

Trampton 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] Lonergan play and Frank Zappa

Hi. You mentionhere that Zappa's music had influence on Lonergan's play This is Our Youth. When going to the article for the play, one does not learn this. Could you please be more specific if possible (and source the info)? This would greatly improve the article on rencerences to Zappa in popular culture (and prevent deletionist forces to gain momentum again :-) ). Cheers! --HJ 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Zappa and his music are pretty pivotal in the play. I'll have to dig up some reviews, etc., before working on the play's article. --Orange Mike 12:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (sometimes called "Chunga")

[edit] Sposer

Orange Mike, I think your comment to Sposer came close to biting a newbie. Poser is a respected technician and author. In his case a little good-faith guidance about Wikipedia can probably do more good than warnings about unfounded suspicions. Rgfolsom 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I genuinely don't think I was biting the noob. I was warning him about the attitude that prevails on this topic, so that he wouldn't get bitten by the real piranhas. --Orange Mike 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for making sure that he knows he'll be welcome here. Rgfolsom 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Freeman

Indeed, I hadn't banked on there being another famous cricketer with that name. My current interest, however, as per my country of origin, lies with English domestic cricket, particularly the teams of Derbyshire, Essex and Glamorgan.

Why these? Simply because they are three of the earliest in the alphabet and it was considerably easier for me to start with Derbyshire simply because their cricketers were extremely poorly represented before I started work on them. As I'm sure you can imagine, there is one reason and one reason only for this.

As for the other Edward Freeman? Well, there's an oddity! A onetime cricketer in a miscellaneous setting back in the early 1870s. As I say, I rely on my links to English domestic cricket to get names, such as Cricket Archive - Derbyshire.

Freeman II certainly wasn't on my current alert list for names, but in time, Australian domestic cricket will hopefully be up there. Bobo. 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template change to my archive

I had never done one of these before, so I'm not sure what was wrong with what I did. What you did looks fine, though, so I'm not gonna worry about it much. Thanks, I guess. --Orange Mike 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a case of adding {{talkarchive}} to a page when you want to use the template, rather than copying and pasting the code of the template from Template:Talkarchive. Otherwise, all sorts of strange things happen like your archives get categorized into Category:Protected templates when they aren't templates at all. Nothing to worry about. Thanks – Qxz 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Mike

My edits to Tammy Duckworth weren't vandalism. I explain my edits in my edit summaries. Kzq9599 04:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I would agree with him after reviewing the edits in question. This is someone getting into a content dispute. Daniel Case 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike, please remove your warning from my talk page. It wasn't vandalism, and Daniel Case is a veteran editor who recognizes that it wasn't vandalism. If anyone feels it is a content dispute, then I feel the dispute needs to be resolved in my favor. I removed an unpublished synthesis of published material that violated WP:ATT, and I removed editorial opinion in the "dirty tricks" statement. Neither one of these belongs in an encyclopedia article. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Present the facts and allow Wikipedia readers to decide for themselves whether it was a "dirty trick." Let's try to trust one another, WP:AGF and work together to make these articles better, Mike. Kzq9599 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The charismatic Dr. M.L. King, Jr.

You need to read the category definition more carefully. "This category contains religious leaders whose main basis of authority was or is based on charismatic authority." _{[emphasis added]} While somewhat charismatic, Dr. King did not fit that definition. --Orange Mike 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that King was indeed a charismatic religious leader and thus belongs in the category. Dr. King is, in fact, often described as one of the most charismatic religious AND political leaders of the entire 20th Century, at least in America. That category definition was written by a layperson/novice, and needs to be changed (I'll do that). Also notice that he is sourced as a charismatic leader over at the List of charismatic leaders page (Sutton, John,Law/Society: Origins, Interactions, and Change () p.112, Pine Forge Press, ISBN 0-7619-8705-3). --WassermannNYC 19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threatened rewrite

When I removed the (unjustified) addition of Dr. M.L.King, Jr. to this category, User:WassermannNYC not only re-added him, but said he was going to re-write the description of this category because

"That category definition was written by a layperson/novice, and needs to be changed (I'll do that)."

I thought anybody interested in the topic should know that before it happens.--Orange Mike 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes the addition of that category to Dr. King's article "unjustified" as you claim? Also, there are no "threats" here, so please check your inflammatory rhetoric. If you would, please take a quick look at the massive reference/further reading list that I've been building over at the charisma page: it's here. Yes, I built that ENTIRE list by myself and am currently in the beginning stages of writing a scholarly book on this very topic. So, I will rightfully say that I am a bit more well read (just a bit...) when it comes to this particular topic than most people, hence the (very minor) re-write of the category description. Hope this clears things up a bit for you. Tschuess! --WassermannNYC 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Charismatic religious leaders

There's a guy out there re-writing this category definition because he says it was written by a noob or non-expert, and he knows better, so he'll just fix it. I don't think he's even heard of Weber. --Orange Mike 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My friend, the entire theory/idea of charisma is not based entirely on Weber as it pre-dates his life by many-many centuries (please see the etymology of charisma on its page; it's a word with ancient Greek roots). Also, please see the reference/further reading list that I've been compiling at the charisma article and then get back to me. --WassermannNYC 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you and I interpret Weber and the purpose of that category, as well as Dr. King's ministry, in entirely different ways. While I believe you are wrong, I do not believe you have ill intent. I see no point in getting into a revert war with you. --Orange Mike 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the Category:Charismatic religious leaders says NOTHING about Weber in the NAME/TITLE of the category (unlike the List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority). Possibly this is where the misunderstanding lies? I was adding those that displayed both the Weberian (quasi-religious?) aspect of charisma along with the definitely religious/Greco-Roman/Christian-Evangelical/Hindu-Guru/etc version of charisma, along with religious cult leaders, messianic figures in history, and such. Again, Weber wasn't the first person to write about charisma, as I'm sure you are aware. So, I suppose that I misinterpreted the "Category:Charismatic religious leaders" as very BROAD (and added too many names), while the manually compiled list I interpreted as strictly Weberian because of the article's/list's title and didn't add anyone to that list/article, except on the talk page. --WassermannNYC 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah! :) The category (to the extent it has any use, a question on which I remain unconvinced due to the inherent subjectivity) is useful only if defined in the narrower, Weberian sense. Otherwise, it becomes a catchbin full of preachers, gurus, shamans, etc. Your re-write takes away that specificity and therefore struck me as wrongheaded. No ill feelings, I hope. --Orange Mike 23:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about that warning tag. I thought your edits were vandalism, but I rechecked them and found out that they weren't. That seemed a little odd, since you were in good standing. Sorry about that, and I removed the warning tag. Good luck editing! BlackBear 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Hi, you have been editing the wiki of Patricia Gras. I don't mean to put spam in there, could you be more specific when you say I am putting "spam" or that it resembles a "fan" site. it seems to look just like any other celebrity or tv personality. so what's the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tvguru2006 (talk • contribs).

• I've left a comment on this user's talk page as to what's wrong here. You may wish to add to it - Alison^☺ 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Florence Reece

I appreciate your patching in the name in the cats I'd started for this new page. Not only am I rather inexperienced with that—I'd copied the syntax of a couple of them from the nearly twenty (!) cats on the Pete Seeger page. Guess what? - I didn't find his name included in any of those, so of course didn't think to use FR's! Now, thanks to you, I know better (and I'm going back to fix the PS page too). I'm also always delighted when someone comes along (and so soon! :-) to work on a page I've created or on which I've done a major edit. (My favorite, I must admit, is when these get translated to another language, especially since I'm a multilingual interwiki worker myself.) As for FR's surname - though I'd been reading about her for the better part of an hour while I was working on the initial text, damned if I didn't misspell it when I created the page! Did a Move right away, but still it's a bit embarrassing (or humbling, at least) in the page's History. So I'll be keeping an eye on that for a while. -- Thanks again, Deborahjay 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a country boy and a union man; always glad to help, ma'am. --Orange Mike 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've got something in common indeed - though my particular patch of Earth is in the rural Western Galilee! And I surely do like Pete Seeger's quote: "I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other" -- though let it be said, we're evidently contempo enough to be finding our virtual place in the Global Village, as far as this is expressed in Wikipedia activity and the volunteer community here. I find this a harmonious sort of existence that's compatible on a micro/macro scale, and am cheered that others such as yourself are "here" too. -- Deborahjay 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My home patch is West Tennessee, but I've been in schöne Milwaukee since 1977. (No change you're related to Dr. Gregory Jay here at UW-Milwaukee, is there?) --Orange Mike 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

'fraid not -- the "Jay" is the spelled-out initial of the surname I've taken on (by marriage and convention). When I opened my User account, I opted for accountability by choosing a name resembling my own, as my WP work is somewhat related to what I do in real life. At times I do wish it were something more clever and imaginative, but folks will have to take me for my rather square self :-) -- Cheers, Deborahjay 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropikal Magik

It's gone, and the user is blocked. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What test?

To what "test" do you refer on the following page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.100.62.63&redirect=no I have made a number of purposeful edits over the months, but I'm afraid I don't understand your message. 70.100.62.63 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... looking back at the edits you did that day, I don't see anything in particular to be bothered by, and nothing I had to revert. I may disagree with you about the "put in the name change" thing on Dr. King, but you didn't change the article! I am as puzzled by it as you are. Do you want me to delete the "test" notice? --Orange Mike 03:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions in "Affirmative action"

Some anonymous editor keeps changing the article to say that AA only helps blacks in the US, and that castes in India compete for increased backwardness so they can get more reservation in India help. You reverted these at least once before; could you undo this crud, so I'm not violating the WP:3RR rule? --Orange Mike 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye on it. Jvbishop 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting spelling

It's a little thing, and I don't mind, but I thought I should let you know that, while correcting spelling, grammar and everything else is a fine thing for articles, it's not considered the done thing for talk pages. Some people do get quite upset about it [1]. Notinasnaid 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of that principle, and wasn't aware that I was doing it. Thanks for giving me a heads-up; I've been an editor for so many years in that Wikimyth called "Real Life" that I must be doing it automatically as a reflex! --Orange Mike 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

I am not interested in "spamming" wikipedia. If you disapprove the link i added to the incest article then please tell me why you think it doesen't fit and I will stop posting it. Please review the article i linked and tell me wether it's content is valuable enough or not. I know you guys are putting a lot of work into wikipedia and I really want to appreciate that. Thanks for taking your time again. --Melinda73 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As another editor already told you, if the information is relevant to the article, put it into the article, with references to primary sources. A blog is not a reliable or encyclopedic source. If the blog article provides reliable, encyclopedic sources for its statements, then go to them and extract information to make the Wikipedia article better. Continuing to insert and re-insert a link to a blog instead makes you look suspiciously like a spammer, possibly the creator of that blog. --Orange Mike 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SciFi Science Fiction

Eek, sorry for any cringing I may have induced. I've had a few friends correct me on the importance of referring to science fiction as science fiction rather than some demeaning, childish acronym, but they're also the same friends that lecture me about the differences between Tolkien's numerous elvish languages, so I usually just tune them out.  :) María: (habla conmigo) 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No biggie; but that particular term, even though I know the guy who created and popularized it, has cringeworthy associations with the very worst of what Hollywood thinks is 'science fiction' (space explosions and special effects for morons). I won't bore you with discourse about the history of Sindarin, Quenya, etc., unless you ask me to! --Orange Mike 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (who didn't have to look up how to spell those, either)

Ha! Those are the only two I can pronounce. María: (habla conmigo) 18:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

¡Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo! --Orange Mike 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I am not sure what you are talking about concerning the UW System article. Also if you want to create a disambig for University of Wisconsin, it should be at "University of Wisconsin" itself not something (disambig). Every UM campuses has a bunch of colleges and schools, and has numerous entities, orgazations with University of Wisconsie as part of their names. Everything associated with any of the UW campuses can be listed in the disambig. I really find it hard to understand you. At last, you should not be influenced by misperceptions, if you think University of Wisconsin should redirect to the system article, please don't be afraid to point it out. Not everyone in the world thinks that only Madison is University of Wisconsin. Miaers 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at your changes. You introduced several misspellings that other people had corrected while you were blocked; you put the category tags out of alphabetical order; that sort of thing. Don't just do a massive revert to your preferred version of the page. --Orange Mike 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Dahmer

Hi Orangemike. Well, you're a Southerner, Irish, Cherokee, science fiction fan, and a hippie, so there's not much I can disagree with you about. But I was curious why you deleted "Because of the nature of his crimes he has become one of the most notorius serial killers in American history" (which I did not write, BTW). I realize Dahmer's article has been heavily vandalized, and I've done quite a bit of reverting myself. But before I add that sentence back in I was wondering if you could give me a rationale for removing it. Thanks. Ward3001 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't write it. Somebody inserted it, apparently on the theory that we wouldn't know he was a notorious serial killer. The most problematic part (other than the bad spelling, punctuation, etc.) is the OR assumption that he is one of the most notorious in American history. How many today remember Leopold & Loeb? H.H. Holmes? The Scandinavian mail-order-bride murderess? Such bald assertions are, IMHO, unencyclopedic and to be avoided. --Orange Mike 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, even though there seems to be a sizeable gray area as to how "notorious" is defined. I suppose almost ANY serial killer by definition is notorious. I can accept your edit if, for no other reason, than the recency of Dahmer's handiwork makes a historical judgment about him impossible at this time. Thanks for your reply. Ward3001 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are obscure serial killers; but Dahmer's case was more colorful, and at the time acquired considerable notoriety, just as Starkweather, Gein and DiSalvo (to cite three relatively modern examples) did in their days. --Orange Mike 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Unicorn Books

Awesome. Let's keep an eye on this person to make sure he/she doens't vandalize more and add more spamlinks. :) Rockstar915 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kind of a shame, really; he created a stub article on a legit topic back in September, worked on it for a while, then nothing: until bang, he created this ad page of his. --Orange Mike 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And he just tried to add the ad link back to the indie bookstore article while not logged on! --Orange Mike 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Good job reverting it. Keep it up! Rockstar915 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Science Fantasy and Comix

Excuse me, but I just read your additions to the Science Fantasy talk page and I believe I have a problem. Call me dated but I am from the generation who explicitly used the term "comix" to refer to revolutionary propaganda. R. Crumb and Gilbert Shelton did comix, yes, but so did Rius and The Situationists. If we're going to use comix to discuss Science Fantasy what are we going to call Los Supermachos?Jplatt39 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in that hunt. If you prefer to use a more generic terminology like "comic strips" or just plain ol' "comics" for material more or less from the mundane/mainstream/non-underground tradition, that's fine with me. The problem with assigning a separate meaning to "comix" is that nobody has ever settled on what that distinct meaning is. Me? I'm an underground fan from way back, but in print I just use it as shorthand, like thanx for thanks. --Orange Mike 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substing

please dont forget to subst templates left on user talk pages. For example. this edit, the template should have been substed. thanks! (btw, to subt a template,. just {{subst:uw-spam}} ) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. --Orange Mike 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)