User talk:Steve block/Archive 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
3 questions
Hi Steve, I want to take care of some Marvel comics articles which need wikifying and clean-up, but I want to check out three questions before I do my first major edits (in order to prevent causing any trouble or annoying the admins ;)). Question No.1: I need a clarification about copyright. If I scan an image myself (for example a character or a comic book cover) and upload it, which copyright tag do I use and how do I state the source formally? Question No.2: Is it allowed to use images from the official Marvel.com website (especially comic book covers for adding them to incomplete lists) and how do I source these images? Question No. 3: Is there an infobox available for comic books? Thank you very much! Incredible Nightcrawler 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Kudos
I've been reading a lot of your comments in several subjects now, and I just have to say that regardless of whether I agree with you or not, you seem to be a phenomenally reasonable and level-tempered guy. Since it looks like you're also likely stressed out, I think you deserve to know that. Good show. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 12:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
re: Robin (E-2)
Thanks for the heads up, though if I understand the 3RR right I'm only sitting on 1 reversion in the past 24 hours. I'd be more worried about if he were swinging through more than once or twice a night though. — J Greb 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- And he's at it again... any chance it may be net passing back through? — J Greb 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Libel, the international version
So, in effect:
- If you add it, watch your own back.
- If you just see it, not to worry.
Thanks for the clarification. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 18:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Gail Simone
We've got an annom vandalizing the page. It isn't the first time the annom account has done similar. Could you take a look and see if either the IP needs a temp blaock or the article needs semi-protection?
Thanks — J Greb 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: The annoms involved are 204.69.40.13 and 69.92.184.84. I'm reverting it one last time (3rd, so I won't touch it again, sadly). — J Greb 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
One Mike/Vince Deporter
Hi Mr.Block, wondering if this is something you'd look into or advise as I have neither the experience nor gravitas. It seems Single Purpose Account Vdeporter (talk • contribs) has made an autobio, and inserted self into a few lists. I'm not sure, but as far as I can tell, he is sufficiently notable[1] so a new COI situation for me. I've put up 2 tags, so is there more I ought to do, or step back and let the system deal? MURGH disc. 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind me jumping in but I have followed this up on the entry's talk page. He does seem to be notable but the entry is copy violation (and not from Deporter's own site so it makes one wonder who the user is) and needs to be removed. I've added some details of their publication on the talk page. I'd recommend you take it out and restart as a stub using some of the info I dropped on the talk page. (Emperor 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
- I've deleted the copyvio and moved the page to Vincent Deporter, where I've created a stub. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nice to see how it's done. But I'm a little confused about how the creation of the Deporter article disappeared from history and user contribs of User:Vdeporter.. Also, since it has come to this point, should I remove the {uw-autobio} tag from his talkpage? MURGH disc. 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted edits disappear from contributions, um, that's just what happens. Ah, here: "Edits made to deleted pages are not kept in contributor's User Contributions pages." From Help:Page history. I think it's a product of the database calls. And yes, I guess the {{uw-autobio}} should be removed. Steve block Talk 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nice to see how it's done. But I'm a little confused about how the creation of the Deporter article disappeared from history and user contribs of User:Vdeporter.. Also, since it has come to this point, should I remove the {uw-autobio} tag from his talkpage? MURGH disc. 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've deleted the copyvio and moved the page to Vincent Deporter, where I've created a stub. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Deletion/tagging
You have expressed an interest in the practice of putting up for deletion articles that needed to be tagged instead. You are therefore cordially invited to contribute to, review, clarify, and/or discuss a working draft on my userspace of a point that needs to be widely clarified on Wikipedia, User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion_is_not_a_substitute_for_tagging. Balancer 18:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've C&Ped the statements from the RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) on the basis that there seems to be agreement that the issue should be taken up in RfC. You may wish to ratify, modify, withdraw, etc your statement if you have made one, or add a statement if you have not. Balancer 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Inventive reporter
About your "I mean, okay everyone says this, but which newspaper was it that had the journalist making things up?" on WT:WEB: There are quite a few, but it may very well have been Jack Kelley in the USA Today. At least that's the one I think I remember hearing of myself. Just posting it here since this trivia comment would look TOTALLY out of place in the current discussion :P --Sid 3050
- Thanks. I was being general though, and referring to the fact that there were quite a few. God knows where the apple cart will land though. Steve block Talk 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Requesting help with resolving debate
Hey Steve, we're having a bit of a revert debate going on at Template:Punkbox. The edit comments should be able to fill you in on what the hassle is, and there's discussion going on here. WesleyDodds 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners
Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
PlayRadioPlay!
Hi. I'm disappointed to see that you've deleted PlayRadioPlay! before the AfD was up. I agree that it wasn't likely to make it, but the article author did indeed assert notability in the AfD discussion, and promised to find newspaper articles demonstrating notability. Was there something that made deleting this early necessary? Thanks, William Pietri 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Once it is clear that the article satisfies the conditions for speedy deletion, there's really not much point in doing anything but that. I think Steve acted appropriately.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- First, I'm saying it didn't meet the criteria for speedy, in that notability was both asserted and plausible. Second, when an AfD is open and people are actively working to improve the article, I think it's impolite to jerk the rug out from under them. In particular, I note that WP:SPEEDY says that "speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content. [...] These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under deletion policy is recommended." I'm all for reasonable applcation of WP:SNOW, but this was not one of those cases, which is why it was brought to AfD in the first place. William Pietri 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article met the speedy criterion, no claim of notability was made in it. The debate was descending into a bit of a farce. It could haver been semi-protected, but myself and Friday both had the same idea to delete it. That is why I closed the debate but Friday deleted it, we obviously work from opposite ends. You yourself note it was unlikely to survive, so I fail to see the real problem with the deletion. It was not brought to afd because of the reasons you suggest, since the nominator noted it was a speedy candidate. The article has been deleted seven times for failing our speedy deletion criteria. A database search revealed no newspaper sources which substantiated any claims made. As to your point that in most cases reasonable editors agree, I would suggest the discussion at the admin's noticeboard and the six prior deletions suggest reasonable editor's agree. I do not feel a rug has been pulled from anyone, there is a freedom to write an article when the sources allow. There had been sufficient time to source that article. I'm sorry you feel that haste was applied, and I certainly accept your comments. I just feel that the four months from October 2006 have allowed sufficient time for suitable sources to be found. Wikipedia is not Myspace, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for up and coming bands with no media coverage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Steve block Talk 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The real problem for me personaly is that I was trying to help a good-faith author either make a good article or understand why the article didn't meet our criteria. The real problem in general is that by telling people we have a fair process and then violating it when we find them annoying, we give them cause to believe that we're not as fair as we claim. Here, the author did assert notability (as you can still see in the AfD) and they put those assertions in the article at some point. Ergo, it wasn't a speedy. I agree completely that Wikipedia is not MySpace, and speedied several articles this week myself. Was there some particular harm avoided by closing this early? So far, I'm seeing cost, but no benefit. Thanks, William Pietri 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right, we seem to have a problem. To me it was a speedy deletion, there were no claims of notability in the article. We can talk about fair processes, but part of our fair processes are that we have speedy deletion criteria, which we both seem to agree this met. If you want to work this article up in your user space, feel free. I've got to take the broad picture here, that's what I'm looking at. You may see it as cost and no benefit, but there are arguments that the article itself was a cost and no benefit. Wikipedia is not free advertising. Wikipedia is not a free marketing tool. I could not find sources to substantiate any claim made at either the afd or the article itself. I researched this. I came to a conclusion that the encyclopedia was better served not having the article as things stand. If you want to work the article up in user space, I have no objection. If you can provide sources, I'll undelete now. But I'm not seeing my point of view being taken on board here. This band have had an article since October 2006. What, to you, is long enough to work an article up to meeting our speedy deletion criteria? What, to you, is the benefit to Wikipedia in our marketing bands and services and goods? What, to you, is the benefit to Wikipedia in having unverifiable information? Now you've already agreed the article was within the bounds of A7. It's a tough call, and maybe Wikipedia has egg on its face again, but let's be honest here. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people. The editor in question harbours serious misunderstandings of the resource Wikipedia is, arguing that we are here to cover "sudden cultural phenomenon". We are a tertiary source. We don't do original research. If there are sources I've missed, I'll gladly review the decision, but at the minute I'm weighing the scales and still coming down on the side of deletion. Sorry. Steve block Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm not being clear. I argued for deletion and salting, so we agree on the eventual likely outcome. As somebody with a barnstar for my vigorous opposition to spam, I think it's clear we also agree that Wikipedia is not for marketing. Where we disagree is over the need to speedy-close the AFD. I'm saying there was no harm in letting Lisa Suarez have a few more days, the days specified in the deletion policy, to come up with the articles she claims exist. I agree the editor in question doesn't get Wikipedia, and I was trying to help her get it. By closing the AFD early, I feel you have needlessly harmed that process, possibly driving away somebody who could be a good contributor. I'm trying to get you to see that harm, so that in the future you let AfD run its course unless there is an overwhelming reason to break a policy that offers a fair hearing to well-meaning but inexperienced newbie editors. Is that clearer? Thanks, William Pietri 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, you were not being clear. If you think I am someone who needs such a warning, then you can consider it given. But I think my contributions stand for themselves, and I know how much I deliberated over this matter, so I hope we can agree to disagree and consider this matter closed. I am well aware of what may be, and I am well aware that that cuts both ways. We don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and that afd was becoming disruptive. You are well within your rights to disagree with my judgement, but do not doubt that the points you raised were well balanced within my mind before I closed that debate. I have left a message for Lisa letting her know the matter can be reopened if sources are garnered. I feel I must take my leave now, for fear of causing or taking offence. Steve block Talk 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm not being clear. I argued for deletion and salting, so we agree on the eventual likely outcome. As somebody with a barnstar for my vigorous opposition to spam, I think it's clear we also agree that Wikipedia is not for marketing. Where we disagree is over the need to speedy-close the AFD. I'm saying there was no harm in letting Lisa Suarez have a few more days, the days specified in the deletion policy, to come up with the articles she claims exist. I agree the editor in question doesn't get Wikipedia, and I was trying to help her get it. By closing the AFD early, I feel you have needlessly harmed that process, possibly driving away somebody who could be a good contributor. I'm trying to get you to see that harm, so that in the future you let AfD run its course unless there is an overwhelming reason to break a policy that offers a fair hearing to well-meaning but inexperienced newbie editors. Is that clearer? Thanks, William Pietri 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right, we seem to have a problem. To me it was a speedy deletion, there were no claims of notability in the article. We can talk about fair processes, but part of our fair processes are that we have speedy deletion criteria, which we both seem to agree this met. If you want to work this article up in your user space, feel free. I've got to take the broad picture here, that's what I'm looking at. You may see it as cost and no benefit, but there are arguments that the article itself was a cost and no benefit. Wikipedia is not free advertising. Wikipedia is not a free marketing tool. I could not find sources to substantiate any claim made at either the afd or the article itself. I researched this. I came to a conclusion that the encyclopedia was better served not having the article as things stand. If you want to work the article up in user space, I have no objection. If you can provide sources, I'll undelete now. But I'm not seeing my point of view being taken on board here. This band have had an article since October 2006. What, to you, is long enough to work an article up to meeting our speedy deletion criteria? What, to you, is the benefit to Wikipedia in our marketing bands and services and goods? What, to you, is the benefit to Wikipedia in having unverifiable information? Now you've already agreed the article was within the bounds of A7. It's a tough call, and maybe Wikipedia has egg on its face again, but let's be honest here. Wikipedia can't be all things to all people. The editor in question harbours serious misunderstandings of the resource Wikipedia is, arguing that we are here to cover "sudden cultural phenomenon". We are a tertiary source. We don't do original research. If there are sources I've missed, I'll gladly review the decision, but at the minute I'm weighing the scales and still coming down on the side of deletion. Sorry. Steve block Talk 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The real problem for me personaly is that I was trying to help a good-faith author either make a good article or understand why the article didn't meet our criteria. The real problem in general is that by telling people we have a fair process and then violating it when we find them annoying, we give them cause to believe that we're not as fair as we claim. Here, the author did assert notability (as you can still see in the AfD) and they put those assertions in the article at some point. Ergo, it wasn't a speedy. I agree completely that Wikipedia is not MySpace, and speedied several articles this week myself. Was there some particular harm avoided by closing this early? So far, I'm seeing cost, but no benefit. Thanks, William Pietri 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Quick move
Just a quick move need over a naming glitch. Details here. Cheers. (Emperor 14:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
I've heard you're a little bit bonked,
And not in the fun porn-star way.
When even your wiki-friends are irking you,
It can really ruin your day.
So consider your your joy-horn honked.
(Err, but not in the porn-star way.)
Think of the good work you've done,
There's reason a-plenty to stay.
brenneman 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Map of Mitcham Common
Thanks! Yes, I did missed the Three Kings out because I'm not sure if thats parts of the common or not. I think it comes under the Fair Green part of Mitcham. Anyway I can add it as a boundary marker. To be honest I rushed the map a bit (and I drew it in MS paint!) so its bound to be off a little. Also missed out bidders pond, and the bit by the Cannons to Willow Lane. I'll make amendments to it when I can, or if you like you can have a go. Think outside the box 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
It's now in your archives, but you gave me some concrete advice about how to block, and I wanted to thank you for it. See WP:AN#Hesitation for more information, if curious. - jc37 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Advice requested
Hi Steve. I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. There appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. Organising by region isn't a problem. But organising by size has become difficult because User:Hmains uses the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions [2] to fit his own understanding of the term - [3]. However, community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [4]. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do you think? Is settlement the appropriate term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps? Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project members. And then on this page. I am a bit lost as the best place to discuss this issue. I don't want to delete or rename any category. And I don't want to get into a revert war. I'd like an open debate to reach sensible consensus. I'm now leaving this message on the pages of WikiProject Category members. Can you advise? SilkTork 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Settlements SilkTork 11:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Team effort
In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Kal-L
I don't see anything in the article that mentions the Earth-Two superhero Superman (Kal-L), nor do I see anything regarding a disambiguation of the other uses of "Kal-El". If you may, can you show me where it is listed in the article? Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at Superman#Comic book character, which discusses Kal-L and has a see also to Kal-L. It appears the article on Kal-L has been moved against naming conventions. Steve block Talk 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- An FYI... looking at the history, it looks like NetK, who appears to be back, had moved it on Oct 10, 2006 and no one noticed it. — J Greb 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I have moved it back to Kal-L. See what happens I guess. Steve block Talk 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- An FYI... looking at the history, it looks like NetK, who appears to be back, had moved it on Oct 10, 2006 and no one noticed it. — J Greb 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply to your message
I am sorry if you found that unconstructive, I'm unsure as to how? I really do think the best thing to do would be to show that Comixpedia is reliable. If you can show that, then any criticism brought up is really beside the point-every publication gets criticism, but if we can show it's reliable and fact-checked, it's a valid source period. I certainly did not intend that to be an unconstructive or inflammatory suggestion, I'm sorry it came across that way. I was hoping that there could be a quick and definitive solution to that particular issue, I was trying to suggest how it could be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- As to burden of proof, I think that depends on the source, how well-known it is, and if it's generally considered reliable in most areas. If one is trying to state that USA Today, the NYT, or Science is not a reliable source in a specific instance, the burden is on that editor, as those sources are almost always considered reliable. Conversely, should an editor attempt to assert that Joe's Random Blog is a reliable source in a given situation, the onus is on that editor to justify it, since this would normally be considered a totally unreliable source. Comixpedia...probably somewhere in the middle, it's to some degree accepted in its field, but apparently that's nowhere near universal, and as you stated its fact-checking processes are certainly in question. I'll let you and Dragonfiend hash that one out, apparently both of you know more on the subject then I do, but I was certainly trying to point out that a source is generally not reliable just because someone says so. (If a source is that unquestionably reliable, like the ones I mentioned above, you don't need to say so.) The old WP:V, and I'd imagine the new WP:ATT, stated unequivocally that the onus is on those who wish to add information to prove that it is reliably sourced. That includes conclusively demonstrating that the source itself is reliable, unless the source is one which already enjoys widespread and clear recognition as such. Comixpedia may be reliable, and if you can demonstrate so-great! You show that them and some others are reliable, this debate is over, and people can write about webcomics all they like from those reliable sources. I am not against webcomic articles. I am against in-universe fiction articles of any type, which do not bother to even go into the fictional work's real-world notability. Those types of articles have a place, and that place is specialty wikis, exactly like Comixpedia (or Startrekopedia, or Pokemonopedia, or whatever). But not here. The only ones that belong here are the ones that have notability in reality, and some type of impact on the real world (or at least a subset of it). If you can find reliable sources for that to be done from, more power to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, what I'm trying to avoid doing is making an uninformed comment. I see you've posted quite a bit of material supporting your position, so I'll have a look at that, and then I can make an informed one! I do get a bit disheartened, though, when I see "Take my word for it". As to WP:ATT, yes, it says obvious information shouldn't be questioned. However, I would suggest that an assertion that is immediately questioned by a couple people is not an obvious one. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean it'll take a bit of standing behind it. You've done that, and the material's there, so that's all there is to it! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
X3
Good idea, thanks. It is, at present, way too long; I'll see if I can snip something. >Radiant< 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Compressed the top part a lot without losing the meaning. The parts on sockpuppetry and usurpation still need work. Please advertise and copyed. >Radiant< 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:EA
I have left a message on my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it was worth a try. Would you mind protecting it? I doubt Ed is going to let the current version as it stands go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ugly things
If you could, I've got a back and forth with another editor that I'd like an admin to look at.
It's here Talk:Spectre (comics)#Article Title and I think it may be on the verge of getting out of hand.
Thanks...— J Greb 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
afd for merging
I fail to understand why deletion is a swift and decisive process, yet merging must be a slow and painful one. The article has one or two defenders who are anti-merge. If I merge, they'll just unmerge. I want to use AFD as a vehicle to make it decisive instead of dilatory, drawn-out, stressful, and discouraging, and to bring in a broader consensus than just me vs. one or two defenders who refuse to see the redundancy. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Anarky
That's impressive work there. Just a few more points. The images need fair use rationales, and they also need shrinking. Copyrighted images shouldn't be any bigger than they would appear in the article. Also, the trivia section needs to be worked into the article somewhere, trivia sections are frowned upon. I think if those happen, a peer review would be a bloody good idea, and then maybe if that goes well take it to featured articles. Steve block Talk 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for your appreciation of my efforts, and for presenting me with my first wiki-award. I've made all of the corrections you noted. All images now have fair use rationals, and have been reduced in size. However, there were panels which held text I felt a reader could benefit from reading, so as to understand the context of the panel. These panels were not fully shrunk. I have also deleted the trivia section (I never knew how to integrate that last note, and to be honest, I never felt it should have been added. I just kept hoping I'd eventually get some citation to validate its inclusion.) Your suggestion that it might be FA worthy seems optimistic, but I only hope that now that these adjustments have been made, nothing stands in the way of the article at least receiving GA status.--Cast 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Steve,
Thank you for restoring the integrity of my talk page. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hyperion (Marvel Comics)
Hey,
Hate to pester you, but is there anyway to get this semi-protected?
We've got what looks like an annom editor with a roaming IP and WP:OWN issues.
The preface to the IP is 75.176. It looks like he's "camping" Hyperion (Marvel Comics), Darkseid, Odin (comics), Wonder Man, and Thing (comics).
At the moment I'm about to hit the 3rd revert of his unexplained reversion of Hyperion. I've got a feeling I'm going to have to leave it in a bad state after this until Friday...
— J Greb 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened?
[5] I don't see what was wrong with the suggested compromise. Could you please explain to me why that edit was reverted?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I responded on my talk page.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Notability guidelines.
I noticed we tend to agree on some of the issues of Notability. I created a userbox for it to help group like minded wikipedians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_AntiNotable DanielZimmerman 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Steve, thanks for your (late :-) ) support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Trivia template
You may have noticed some recent changes in the trivia/toomuchtrivia template. As a result of discussion at Template_talk:Toomuchtrivia, we're trying to bring the name of the tag, the wording, and the category into agreement with the current guidelines. Would you assist by moving <toomuchtrivia> to <trivia> and making <toomuchtrivia> the redirect? I would have taken it to Requested Page Moves for more discussion, but that seems to be for articles only. As you can see on the talk page, there is consensus already. Thanks! CovenantD 07:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, Woohookitty was working Templates for deletion and s/he was kind enough to handle it. CovenantD 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Captain America
Dude, if anybody knows how you feel abou hitting the wall, it's me. Only in my case the wall keeps hitting back...
Only if you happen to be up and around on Wiki anyway, you might want to look at semi-protecting Captain America. Several times already today, despite what it says on the talk page, anon IPs and others keep inserting as fact, "Captain America's dead!" This is, course, at least twice for Cap (remember Steranko's run?), and there's been Superman, and Green Lantern, and Reed Richards, and Nick Fury.... Since at least the Daily News is running with Marvel's press release on this publicity stunt, this might go on for days.
Don't know if you're around, so I'll slip this note over to Chris Griswald as well. Hope you're OK --Tenebrae 17:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I request a comic peer review for a webcomic?
I did a lot of editing for the article about the webcomic El Goonish Shive. Now I'd like to request a peer review, but there are no specific procedures for webcomics, but there are some for comics. Do I need to enter El Goonish Shive into the comics project, and does it qualify for it because there are printed editions? Ambi Valent 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Would like an admin's opinion
Ran across something today that I'd like an admin's opinion on.
It's in two parts:
First is the edits by STEALTH RANGER to Captain. He's added a large section on "Captain" as used in fiction and prose, effectively doubling the article's size. It reads as OR to me but I would like a second opinion before either tagging it or out right removing it. I think he created it in order to support the second part.
This is List of Superhero Captains. The majority of it is by the same editor's hand. It smells of OR and blatant fan cruft. I'm not sure if tagging it will do any good or if it should go to AfD.
Thanks, — J Greb 19:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Additional:
- The same user is adding a link to his "list" to various article as well as a non-existent category: List of Superhero Captains.
- I'm still not sure how to move forward on this...
- — J Greb 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Awards
Hi Steve, ive looked through your contribs and i would like to award you some barnstars because i think you have earned them, Regards Anon
 This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
 |
 |
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
 Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
||
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
||
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
|
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
||
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
||
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
|
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
||
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
||
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
|
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
||
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
||
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
|
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
|
This barnstar is awarded to you for your exceptional help in assisting me setting up language files User:Anon 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
||
|
|
— User:ANON 14:39, 21 March 2007 |
||
|
Steve Block is awarded this Resiliant Barnstar for doing his very best to help the Advisory Council. -- Anona 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
