New Immissions/Updates:
boundless - educate - edutalab - empatico - es-ebooks - es16 - fr16 - fsfiles - hesperian - solidaria - wikipediaforschools
- wikipediaforschoolses - wikipediaforschoolsfr - wikipediaforschoolspt - worldmap -

See also: Liber Liber - Libro Parlato - Liber Musica  - Manuzio -  Liber Liber ISO Files - Alphabetical Order - Multivolume ZIP Complete Archive - PDF Files - OGG Music Files -

PROJECT GUTENBERG HTML: Volume I - Volume II - Volume III - Volume IV - Volume V - Volume VI - Volume VII - Volume VIII - Volume IX

Ascolta ""Volevo solo fare un audiolibro"" su Spreaker.
CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
User talk:Steve block/Archive 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Steve block/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Notability.. guideline?

Hi, I noticed that a few months ago you "made" Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) a guideline. I was wondering if that counts as an official guideline, or is that in name only. I had thought that for something to be an official guideline, it needs some sort of official vote. Is this not true? Fresheneesz 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See votes are evil What wikiipedia is not for thoughts on voting and whether Wikipedia is a democracy. Basically, it isn't, and we determine decisions by consensus. For details on how a policy is created, see and guidance on creating policy and guidelines. The page is indeed a guideline, there are no levels of guideline tagged pages, all pages so tagged have equal status, as guidelines. As to how I determined the consensus, I'd note the page is in wide usage, is linked to very heavily and no objections have been raised on the talk page. Steve block Talk 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you object to replacing the Template:IncGuide with Template:Guideline? Also, I don't really see the point of having it as a guideline since the main point of the entire article is that a company needs to be listed by multiple reliable sources exactly equal to WP:V. The only thing it adds is to allow the inclusion of "English men's football clubs competing in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system" - which sounds like a totally random inclusion, and is probably someones POV rather than a consensus. Fresheneesz 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page you'll see the consensus for that addition. This isn't the place to discuss whether it is a guideline or not, that should be done on the page's talk page. As to changing the tag, I do object, because for notability criteria we use the {{IncGuide}}. Steve block Talk 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Your objection gives no valid reason. Saying "it is because it is" is a horribly blunt circular argument. You got anything better? The notability requirement all links back to WP:N which is a stub proposal with no support whatsoever, and follows in the footsteps of 2 failed proposals. I think thats an inappropriate association. Fresheneesz 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is fairly high support for it. Wikipedia:Notability is a high-visibility page, linked and referred to everywhere; anyone who objects to the change objects on the Talk page; anyone who agrees with it says "oh, that's a good idea" and continues along their way. The text of that page is pretty clear and being on Wikipedia for almost 3 years and encountering hundreds of editors on subjects directly related to this issue, at an absolute, extraordinarily conservative minimum, two-thirds of Wikipedia editors would agree with the statements on that page now; they are quite a basic common ground. The people who object are always the most vocal, and the people who agree aren't usually vapid enough to leave an empty "Support" vote on the Talk page. —Centrx→talk • 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
People agreeing upon it as an essay didn't agree upon it as a guideline. How many people do you think have realized that it is now a guideline proposal, and have supported it? Look at the talk page - Not many. Fresheneesz 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have lost the thread of this discussion. We don't use one template because we use another. That's not a circular argument, but continuously asking "why" is when one has been given the answer. Why do we tag articles for deletion with {{afd}} rather than {{cfd}}? For clarity and as a method of explanation. Why do we use {{IncGuide}} instead of {{guideline}}? Because about a year or so ago, someone grouped all these pages together and tagged them through their commonality. And people thought it was a good idea so we used it. What links where has no real bearing on the material on a page. Let's not forget that ultimately, Wikipedia exists because a couple of people thought it was a good idea to build an encyclopedia. I happen to agree with them. Any power in a policy page is there because the people building the encyclopedia grant it. There is no reason beyond that. I appreciate it's hard to take when consensus seems to contradict how you believe, but sometimes those are the breaks. Let's not forget we are here to build an encyclopedia, not build rules telling us how to do it. Any decision on Wikipedia is going to be disputed, so we need touchstones to work out how we all feel about things. When a page is cited repeatedly in such discussions, it usually implies it offers guidance. However, let's not forget, contributing to Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Steve block Talk 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the power of any policy stems from the believers in that policy. And thanks for clarifying what I was really after. However, in building this encyclopedia, people have also been building rules for how to do it as well - to make the process go smoother and faster. "contributing to Wikipedia isn't for everyone" - what are you implying.. :: raises eyebrow :: ? Fresheneesz 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I finally answered what you were after, although I'm still none the wiser as to what it was. People will always build rules. We will also always have Ignore all rules. As to what I mean by stating that not everyone finds editing Wikipedia to their tastes, I mean exactly what I say, nothing more, nothing less. Steve block Talk 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Judge

The way he writes, his edits, his behavior towards other editors... I wonder if he's not (at least) linked to a problematic six-month-banned user. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one who has been thinking that. To create a WikiProject and a number of templates within days of registering is out of the norm and seems suspect. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I asked him about this on Tuesday. He says no. The next step is internal investigation. Steve block Talk 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You can make that four people who suspect them to be one and the same. CovenantD 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's just been confirmed, as well as Shredder-man[1]. Can you, using the admin mop, go about deleting all the crap that he's created since his return? CovenantD 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No surprise at all. Now, what about all those templates he's created and proposed?
  • {{Infobox DCAU character}}
  • {{Miniherobox}}
  • {{Multiherobox}}
    —Lesfer (t/c/@) 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I can delete them, but any user can remove them from an article. However, if you do, use the following edit summary: removing additions by a user evading an arb-com block, see WP:BAN and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. Any help would be appreciated. Steve block Talk 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He's created some articles as well:

  • List of characters appearing in Batman: The Animated Series
  • List of villains appearing in Batman: The Animated Series
  • General Vox
  • Draaga
  • The Judge (comics)

Some of these using his Shredder-man persona. What to do? Delete them all just like those three templates? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

His upload log, Steve: [2] —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

CAT: DCAU characters

If this category has been speedy deleted, won't administators who watch the categories for discussion depopulate it? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that work can be done by any editor, not just an admin. But yes. I just fancied that speed was of the essence and it was good experience for you. :) Steve block Talk 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Good experience. Very funny. I'll keep clicking save. :) --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, is that how it works? I can list it at the cfd working page if it's too much. And seriously, it's a good thing to have in your edit history. Steve block Talk 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tintin

No problem looking over the page. FAR is just small enough we can give each a little TLC... There's a couple more on-the-fence comments I'm sure you'll notice in the review, which you may want to take care of. Marskell 13:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Steve. I sense a little exasperation in your last review comment on Tintin :). I'm basically a keep on the article myself, and I think at the present pace of work (there's about four editors copyediting) there should be no worry. The page will be that much better with the criticisms addressed.
I hope you're largely agreeing with my copyediting. Basically I've been shortening sentences, as there's some unneeded language. For instance, there's sometimes repeated or obviously implied information in sentence predicates that does not belong ("Hegre created a well-realized world for his characters to inhabit.").
Keep up the good work. Marskell 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, all's well that ends well. A few people dropped into the page to work on it, and its now a much better FA. Cheers, Marskell 05:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And now...

You recently said that CFD is broken. Could you please elaborate? It may be fixable. I've got some duct tape right here. >Radiant< 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Please point me to some of these disputed decisions? What (if anything) seems to be the agenda or direction of this clique? >Radiant< 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, I begin to see your point. I'm not sure if it's quite this bad yet, but ironically I predicted this wildgrowth of categories over a year ago. The problem is that while we have some policy/guideline about what categorization is or isn't appropriate, (1) most people don't read that, (2) most people don't understand that the more categories an article has, the less meaningful they all become, (3) most long-term editors don't care about categories, and (4) people can "drive-by" to have their pet cats kept (pun intended).
    • I think passing WP:CI swiftly goes some way into stopping this (at least, it'll get rid of "foo by religion" and "bar by sexuality"). A second Good Thing would be gathering some clueful users and having them comment on each day's CFD (it's not that much work, honestly). A third option would be to strictly enforce CSD#G4 on categories, but that'd require a list of them (or the good memory of some clueful users). There was some effort in creating that, but it fizzled out.
    • Looking around CFD some more, the biggest problem seems to be the intersective cats. So if any of you are anywhere near IRC this week, please chat up the developers regarding [bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5244 bug 5244]. >Radiant< 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_Categories. >Radiant< 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked me how I'm getting on with making my bot patrolling Protected deleted categories. At the moment RobotG is broken, because of the recent major change to the category listing (the tree format): I am of course working on fixing that first without having as much time to devote to it as I'd like. When RobotG is back to health I will try and code up the feature you requested as promised. Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. RobotG will now patrol Protected deleted categories too. First tentative run just completed. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

T-Man

Something has been nagging at me since T-Man was caught with two sock puppets. Please take a look at T-ManWiki (talk • contribs). Is this worth a checkuser? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing trouble with the Star Wars comics

What should we do about Skope (talk • contribs)? He was told not to make articles for individual Star Wars issues, but he continues to do so. There are so many articles to merge because of him, and some of them aren't even out yet. He just makes less-than-stubs that, until he can add more information, are all duplicate regurgitations of press releases. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

Thanks for making the adjustment; the project will work much better this way. I read a discussion between Jimbo Whales and a guy from Britannica on WSJ.com, and it got me thinking again about the strength of Wikipedia's numbers. If new people work with more experienced people, they can learn how better to edit. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Hey, Steve, and thanks for your comments at WP:EL. I am willing to listed to comments that are both for and against me, to see what I can do to reach a reasonable consensus.

Regarding the bit you struck out, you made a very valid point. I did prompt a pointless, stupid and embarrassing edit war. Obviously at the time I was a total newb without a clue that obviously hadn't read this, this, or this. I want to make it very clear that I am truly sincere when I say that I wish the whole thing never happened and that I was entirely to blame. Since the dispute I have removed all offending material that I could find on my site [3], and have recently made it over again from scratch. If you see anything there that is still offending copyright, please let me know and I will remove it. I have no intention or desire to violate any copyright with my site, and that's not just because I want a link from Wikipedia. I get tons more from other sources than I do from WP. The reason for creating my site was simple: I really enjoy Calvin and Hobbes, and I wanted to create a place on the web for fans to enjoy, as well as for newcomers to get aquianted with the strip.

I want to try to see if we can simply put the whole dispute behind us. You did come off as a bit rude, and hasty to me, but I think that much of that was caused by ignorance and rudeness on my part.

The main reason I brought up this discussion was not prompted by linking to my site, but rather on linking to other Calvin and Hobbes fan sites that are in the article. There are several very useful links there that would technically not be allowed by the current system, because it only allows for linking to one fan site. However, there is more than one site that merits linking, and I don't think that they (or fan sites in general) should be excluded on these grounds. This is not just for my selfish reasons either, it is for the good of the entire project. There is no reason for Wikipedia to be arrogant and refuse to link to fan sites on the grounds that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". This is true, but there is no harm in having a few external links at the the of a well-written article. Please note as well, that in cases where there are many (I'd say more than five) quality fan sites to link to, that the propsed change states that linking instead in that case to a Open Directory Project category (or, if there is none, some other directory such as Yahoo!) would be the best solution.

Anyway, I hope that you can offer some suggestions on what you would prefer me to do, and what to change about the proposal to make it reasonable to you. I know that you want to stick to your guns and not links to fan sites period, but a pretty healthy majority (but mind you, not a consensus yet) think that the proposal on the table is a good solution. I really believe that if we are all willing to compromise a bit, we'll come to a reasonable consensus. Thanks. - Mike 00:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

Thanks for pointing it out; I've replied there. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Asgardian

Hi, Steve. I see you're staying busy!

I hate to add to your burden, and am only doing it after another admin who wanted to help said he didn't know enough after comics. He suggested I got the Admin noticeaboard, but before doing that and possibly running into the same problem, I was hoping you might take a look. It involves the ever-problematic Thor (Marvel Comics). (God — so to speak — who would have thought such a low-selling, twice-canceled character had such fervent fans.)

User:Asgardian continues to make trivial and often misspelled and stylistically wrong, and grammatically poor edits to Thor that three other editors (User:CovenantD, User:Jamdav86 and myself) keep removing, to no avail. See [example]. He won't work with the community, won't offer compromise solutions, and writes long, defensive diatribes at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics). It's not vandalism per se, I don't believe, but edits clearly against consensus. Any advice? -- Tenebrae 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. -- Tenebrae 19:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you could look at the rest of Asgardian's recent edits it would be appreciated. He keeps reverting many other Thor related articles to his prefered version, often wiping out the SHB, wikilinks, categories and the other language stuff at the bottom. I'm getting tired of having to revert his/her sloppy edits, day after day after day, on article after article. CovenantD 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

EL

Please allow time for more discssion with regard for your proposed changes. David.Kane 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the changes, but don't simply revert them, thanks. Steve block Talk 13:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for accusing you of making 3 reverts when, in fact, you had only made 2. Since I have made three, I will not be making more today, although I hope other editors will. It is not so much that I object to the substance of your changes as I object to the high-handed (as it appeared to me) style of making them. David.Kane 14:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at User_talk:David.Kane

Steve, I must disagree with the way you went about doing things as noted in your second comment on David's talk page. Notice that the rest of us brought up a topic on the talk page before making significant changes to the guide, whereas you simply came in and made your changes, and then brought them up on the talk page. When David then reverted your edits that had been made without disucssion, you commented "feel free to disucss changes, but don't revert them without discussion." Am I missing something here? Because I was under the impression it was the other way around. - Mike 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • (I've amended the above back to the original version. If you want to make changes, please strike out using <strike>strike through code</strike>. Steve block Talk 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (Sorry, you keep changing your comments as I try to reply so I'm not sure this is valid anymore but here goes.) Are you suggesting I was too bold. I've got a fair understanding of policies and what works and what doesn't. There's currently no consensus for the page to be split as David was attempting. The onus is on him to build consensus for that change. I was not amending established policy beyond anything that had already existed or been discussed. My point to David regarding don't revert without discussion was that David had already reverted the page twice. It was clear there was a problem and our guidance is that problems are discussed, not reverted. edit wars don't get us anywhere. However, the page is now protected due to the edit warring that occurred, and everyone now has to discuss the issues involved. I'm not clear what your point is, exactly. I asked a user not to revert but to seek discussion. Steve block Talk 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry about that. I was just fixing typos and things of the like, didn't mean to create an edit conflict :-). I think you misunderstood me a little. I disagreed with David's changes, however what I noticed were your changes to the wording of some of the sections, which did have an impact on their meaning. Looking back at the edit history I think I got a little confused about what was reverted and what wasn't (very chaotic at that time :-), but I think it would have been nice if you had braught up those changes on the talk page before making them, rather than making them and expecting that nobody revert them. I don't fault your intentions, and I am sure that the changes were in good faith. Heck, maybe I'm just a little over-sensitive to them because I was involved in all that was going on at the talk page at the time. Maybe we were getting into debating petty changes to the guide, because some of your edits seemed to be along the lines of what we were still debating over. I am glad the page has been protected so that now we won't have to worry about edit warring and can simply come to a solution. Happy editing! - Mike 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NCC

Well, I think I'm finished with the integration. Check it out and see what you think. I gave a quick explanation of changes at this talk page. - jc37 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, tardy reply. Seems to be settled and okay. How are we disambiguating publications now? I quite liked the idea of using publication. Steve block Talk 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rakaboshi

Hi. I just saw that you deleted a mainspace article by this name. The sole contributor to this article was User:Rakaboshi. It was an empty page, and I do not contend that it should not have been deleted. But, the thing is that you did not inform the newbie user about its deletion. Many of potential editors may be deterred by that. I suggest that you write up some kind of note on this particular user's page, about the page he created and why it was deleted. Please reply here if you want to, I am watching this page Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I was going to but the phone rang. Thanks for the note though. Also have to list Zippy (SWG) rev 2 at the deleted pages list. Steve block Talk 12:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring assitance

Hullo. I'm trying to trim the fat from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop to make it remotely usable. I've copied a version to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Sandbox2. I'm currently cutting out side issues etc, but the bigger task will be the summarising/condensing of things that do need inclusion. I could use some help, even if it's just in the form of "edit so-and-so was bad, leave in foo and take out bar." - brenneman {L} 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still kinda adding stuff to the page to try and get across what I see as the issues. I think it might be best to just leave the whole page as it is, it's a workshop, they tend to get messy. The committee will work out what they want from it. If people think I'm adding to the mess, well, they know where to find me. Steve block Talk 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was naive...

To hope that everyone could work together in finding solutions to the problems in this RfA, editing collaborativly. I'm over that, but when I'm on the committee, it will be better.

Regardless, I hate to read your last few posts, as you sound dispirited. Yes, this arbitration is a disaster. Yes, there are quite a few dogdy practices laid bare without solutions evident. But buck up little camper, we'll get it right eventually. Wikipedia, I mean, even I don't still have much hope for this arbitration.

brenneman {L} 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The thought of you on the arb-com made me smile. I'm getting tempted to stand myself next time, but I haven't got the clout to make it anything but a dream. I'm very unclear on what the scope is on that arbitration, and I haven't yet received a reply. I'm not sure I'd manage it any better though. I have been thinking that the only way to get a deadminship proposal working is to go straight to the top. Who has the power to deadmin? Steve block Talk 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Current events

1.) First, thank you for the comment. I saw you were somewhat buried in other matters. But even so, no need to apologise, as I said, I had no expectations : )
For further info see: Kbdank's talk page; Wryspy's talk page; my talk page And for "after comments": David D.'s talk page and my RfA page itself (in particular, my "last day comments at the top).
And I appreciate the nomination offer. see David D.'s talk page for my comment on that. (Sorry about all the "see also"s, but it sounds better to not try to re type out another essay : )

2.) Please also check out the discussion on the WP:UCFD talk page (observations).

3.) Now that it's been "stable" for awhile, I think I'd like to start working on Hal Jordan as that's one of the requests on WP:CMC. Any thoughts? - jc37 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you want to do it collaboratively or on your own? Steve block Talk 13:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • May hands make light work, many eyes see what a single pair might miss. That said, either way is fine with me. It seems we were timely in our discussion. Did you note the discussion on the WikiProject's talk page? I think maybe we (I?) need to clarify about the overview articles when not disambiguated? - jc37 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You could either work it up in your user page or do it in a temp subpage of the article, and invite collaboration. I'd be happy to give pointers. The general idea would be to split the page into sections, and then work the sections up into articles. That sort of thing. Steve block Talk 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Checklist?

Hi there, Steve. Would you mind checking what the heck is this ?? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've left a message. I'll take it from there. Steve block Talk 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :D —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I just had to be sure you weren't playing favorites. Then I deleted it. Brian Boru is awesome 15:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User Lesfer

Steve, if you would please advise editor Lesfer to refrain from personal attacks, specifically (Don't be such a cry baby, kid. Grow up.), and (really, how old are you? 10?). There is a semantic difference in how Lesfer and myself view the categories as they are assigned to specific individuals with two aliases. Lesfer had stated that I have "a personal grudge against me", however it is Lesfer himself that uses a derogatory tone towards each of my contributions and has failed to WP:AGF on my behalf. Thank you for your time. NetK 23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sping clean

I've just ran once over WP:Notability (People) . There's a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Medium_sized_clean-up if you'd like to partake. Not a shake-up, just a tidy-up. - brenneman {L} 11:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the thought. I seem to have my hands full at the moment, and one day I want to get back to finishing Tintin. Sob. I'll do what I can. Steve block Talk 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, Steve. As this whole thing begun because of this, I hope you tell him how uncivil false accusations of vandalism are. Cheers —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. No problem at all. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From this point

Steve, touche regarding your comments on the incident report. The matter has been handled and we'll work from this point forward. I see consensus reached relating to Clark Kent and Nuklon, and look forward to other articles specifically being mentioned as to consensus regarding categorization. Please see my analysis on the Atom article included on the Projects page relating to Suicide Squad. Thx. NetK 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm glad it all sorted itself out. I'll try and look at the Atom issue. Might not get to it though, many pies. Steve block Talk 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Peanuts

Hi Steve: I have proposed Peanuts as a possible collaboration of the month at WP:COMICS. I merged your old nomination into the new one, was that the correct way to re-nominate it? I'm new to the WikiProject. Here's hoping it passes. Needs a lot of work and references. -  Mike | trick or treat  23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno what's supposed to happen with an old nom and a new one, first time it ever happened. Looks like one way to do it. :) I'll have to get around to working on Peanuts one day. Instead of working for them. Good luck. Steve block Talk 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional elementals

What's supposed to happen with this? I mean, you know me, I'd just empty it. Merge it where? Do we really need to categorise fictional characters by their abilities? Steve block Talk 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following to the WikiProject talk page. It has the necessary links. But to summarise, we need to merge the category into subcats of category:Fictional characters by superhuman power, and listify the actual "elementals" (not including the element manipulaters/generaters). - jc37 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Category help

Per this now closed CfD/R, category:Fictional elementals needs to be manually recategorised. (See discussion here.) Any and all help would be appreciated. - jc37 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I read the stuff at the project page, but like I say, I'm still not clear on what's supposed to happen. Listify which "elementals"? The classical elementals, like those that use fire or water, or the elementals like Swamp Thing and.... did Ostrander do something with um, Nucleo, was it? And I think Gaiman made Brother Power the Geek a doll elemental. Or something. See, this is why I get confused and just want to delete it all. :) Steve block Talk 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Firestorm. That's who Ostrander did something with. Steve block Talk 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nature's elementals, as opposed to element wielding characters, I believe is the idea. If you think that it's confusing, I can go through and try to deal with the elementals first, if you (and others?) can start the merge of the wielders. (Though I think most are already sub-categorised, so it's just a matter of removing the elemental category, and checking for subcat categorisation.) - jc37 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll make a start and you can see if I cock up. Meantime you can explain what you mean by nature's elementals. It'd help me if you could list some examples. Steve block Talk 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Elemental lists the non-comic book ones. I think we should create: List of elementals in fiction and possibly List of elementals in the DC Universe - Swamp Thing (Alec Holland), Firestorm (Martin Stein), Red Tornado (John Smith), and there was a water one (Naiad) in some issues of Firestorm, but I don't know if she's still around. A "deity" of sorts named "Maya" (not to be confused with the recent superheroine of Indian descent) apparently claimed to give the four of them their elemental powers. Category:Heralds of Galactus already exists, though it too, should probably be listified for similar reasons. What's going to be "fun" is video games and media related to video games. Four Fiends, for example. Perhaps List of elementals in computer and video games. How's that for a start? - jc37 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Mark Millar's run on Swamp Thing played with this a bit, he developed a Parliament of Stone, of Water, of Wind and of Fire, and made Swamp Thing become champion of all of them and thus unified them all into a Parliament of Earth. I don't have the issues anymore, but he seemed to disregard the "Maya" idea, although I could be wrong. Steve block Talk 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ? How come you moved this to my talk page? There's no discussion to unify. Steve block Talk 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever anyone asks me a question, I move their question, and my response to their talk page. It keeps the question in context, and to me would seem to be the polite thing to do. - jc37 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah. You can just as easily reply at your talk, I watch other people's talk pages after I've posted a comment, and I think your talk page is one I watch permanently now, in case I miss a good idea. :) Steve block Talk 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I made the request. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair play. I was trying to hammer something out off-wiki, but that hasn't come to anything as yet, so no problems. Whilst you are here, I owe you a few replies. Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) seems to be gathering pace without me, which is good. The cleanup project is a good idea, but is what the comic project is supposed to be, and also I'm stretched everywhere at the moment. User:T-ManWiki I would put money on being someone else who decided to clean up after T-Man, I have an idea who but those dragons may as well lie sleeping for now. User:Skope still a problem? I think that's it. Steve block Talk 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words on my RFA. I've always tried to be more like you as an editor. I used to ask you how you got you skill with Wikipedia mechanics, as well as patience in dealing with disputes, but it turns out a lot of it comes with experience. I appreciate all the help you have given me, and I plan to do my best, should I become an admin. Otherwise, I will probably just slack off and relegate myself to mocking the good work of other users. Thanks again, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As for Skope, we got him to merge his single-issue articles, but I think he's stuck at maintaining the story arc articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

T-Man Parte the Thirteenth

So, I guess it's cleanup time again. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • yeah. I've just blocked User:201, I'm just in the middle of sorting out what to do with the IP addresses. I know they can be tricky, since more than one user can have the same IP address. Time to re-read my policies. Steve block Talk 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Block and updating ArbCom ruling

Hi there. After being told that User:201 is a sockpuppet, I investigated further and I see you implemented these two indef blocks: [4] and [5], but on reading the ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic, I saw that the Logs and Bans bit at the bottom hasn't been updated to include the indef block. HTH. Carcharoth 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops, good catch, certainly does help, ta. Steve block Talk 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Steve

Do you consider this to be a perosnal attack?I don't believe it is but CovenantD thinks it is.

Categories Per cfd notice board do not delete categories until voting is done. Then do what you like!!What's with the hate!!Why all this DC Comics tv series in the deletion categories crap.Brian Boru is awesome 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't respond well to personal attacks. Would you like to try again? CovenantD 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) It's not a personal attack. Per cfd notice board do not delete while discussion is in progress. And besides I never attacked you.How was mine a personal attack besides?I never even commented on you just the categories. Lighten, up. Brian Boru is awesome 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"What's with the hate!!" is an assumption and an attack on my motives. CovenantD 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CovenantD"

Violations ?

Steve block,

I agree conversation would be advantegeous. I noticed Lesfer has made a series of such moves of which you have not commented on, and I simply did the same. If we are to treat each Flash as different, we should treat each Robin and Superman as different by also providing them their own article. DC Comics lists them separately, why are we different?

You had mentioned two guidelines which I was violating. I'm sorry but I fail to see a precise example of this relating to the free license, I've extracted material to produce adjacent articles but I don't believe I disgarded any contributions from fellow users. However I will review the guidelines in more depth, as they are always beneficial to incorporate into our contributions.

If there have been any violations, please WP:AGF that I was unaware of the precise mechanics involved in these guidelines as it applies to recent edits.

Additionally, you are asking that we handle each article as a separate case, however you have previously sighted the "No Rules" guideline, yet by saying we should treat each article as separate is...in fact...a rule in and of itself. If they are to be handled as exceptions, then why have a comicbook project to lend suggestions across the board?

That said, I agree that more conversation should be involved, and would ask you also invite Lesfer and others who have also follow the same naming convention I have utilized into the dialogue. Thank you for your time.

Hey steve User:Netkinetic is still making Robin (Richard Grayson). He might be trying to fix it, but he's making it worse. Brian Boru is awesome 18:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Renshaw in Mitcham

I'll admit, that was a poor reason for deletion. Though, in my own defense, I honestly was having trouble figuring out what the article was about, and I was right, it didn't belong. DesertSky85451 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to do that? Thats insane. Half the time prod tags are ever removed is because some anon-IP comes and takes it away. Golly the red tape of Wikipedia makes me want throw my monitor out the window sometimes..... DesertSky85451 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Archive

(Archival Note: The following several discussions took place on jc37's (my) talk page, Steve Block's talk page, and the talk page of the "new" - now deleted/redlinked - page described below. - jc37 19:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Unified discussion

Moved several related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (Feel free to revert if you wish.) - jc37 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, I have no idea what on earth you are doing, but I'd like you to not chop about with my talk page and spell my name right. I'm not clear what some of those sections have to do with the issue. Steve block Talk 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Um...

Did you ask Netkinetic before you started cutting stuff off of his user page? Steve block Talk 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally saved page before I could include the comment. This discussion's starting to get out of hand, and I think we should stop the creates/moves and talk about it. The problem is that the discussion is scattered across many talk pages. - jc37 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is always scattered, that's Wikipedia. You shouldn't cut stuff off of people's talk pages without asking first, that's just as bad as the issue we're discussing now. Half that stuff is unrelated. Most of the discussion is at the WikiProject, just point people there. Steve block Talk 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean to say you've never seen a discussion moved to a sub-page? Or just that you don't agree with the idea? As for the accusation of "just as bad":
  • "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile." (bolding mine) See also: Help:Talk page.
That page also has an answer to your previous question about unifying discussion on talk pages. See: Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. - jc37 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears the message at the top of my talk page got lost in an archive or something, but I used to have a message telling people I would reply at their talk page. And whilst I have seen discussion moved, I have never ever seen messages from user talk pages moved in that fashion. And I have no idea what you are talking about with Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. If I've done that, I apologise, but let me know where so I can fix it. If you are applying it to what you did, well, user talk pages are user pages, so "Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests." User talk pages are for leaving messages. It's not best practise to start cutting messages off other people's talk pages without checking first. Like I say, that's just as bad as moving pages here there and everywhere without discussing first. If I have offended you in any way, please accept my apology, but I'm finding it hard to understand what's going on here. Steve block Talk 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
And I missed the part where you apologised for spelling my name wrong. Steve block Talk 20:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Offended? no. Surprised at the apparent vehemence of the response would probably be more accurate. Though if I am mis-reading, my apologies, in turn.

I meant the quote in the latter fashion, in response to your statement of "just as bad". (Which I thought I had made clear. Perhaps not.)

As for user pages, the "feel free to revert" means exactly that. I wonder if you were being helpful in doing all the reversions yourself? Possibly. Thuogh I think that will be up to each user. I honestly have no further opinion on it.

As for your name, I presume you're talking about the typo of B/b ? I fixed it as a typo (I'm not certain, but I think even before I saw your comment about it. I could be wrong though). In any case, if such a typo has garnered any ill-feeling or ill-will on your part, I wholly do of course apologise, as of course, it was unintentional. Though I have to say that it's not unlikely I may typo as such in the future, and if so, please take it in that sense, rather than in some fashion in which you may deem that it should require an apology.

To be rather honest, I've never seen you like this, even when dealing with some of the situations I copied on that page. So at this point, I think I'm going to take it all with a grain of salt, and hope that whatever is troubling you will be resolved in a positive way for you forthwith : ) - jc37 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not at all sure where you are going with this. Being helpful reverting talk pages? I'm not being helpful, I'm putting things back the way they were and letting people edit their talk pages how they want. I'm not sure how they archive their talk pages, but I know how I archive, and your removal of sections would have left me with an incomplete archive. Now forgive me if that appears trivial to you, but I do consider that how I archive my talk page is for me to decide. I'm aware I asked you whether you had asked Netkinetic before you removed items from his talk page, I'm also aware that after asking you that you removed stuff from my talk page. That you disregarded my concerns and that you didn't even consult me before removing stuff from my talk page just seems wrong to me. That you can't accept that, or even acknowledge that your actions may perhaps have been better being discussed with the users in question first disturbs me somewhat. I'm not clear exactly what you are doing here, but it would be nice to have my concerns addressed. I appreciate that you fixed my name, but as you can see, I did note it above, a reply to at least one of my points would have been appreciated. Still, like I say, I queried what you did, you then did the same to me and here we are. Steve block Talk 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain where you feel that I haven't responded to your questions. But please, feel free to restate the question, and I would be happy to try again. As I look up the page, I think we've both waxed on well in verbosity.
  • As for whether I thought the action was "wrong"... No, not wrong, because, as I mentioned on each page, they were welcome to revert. That makes all the archiving concerns actually trivial. "If you don't want things mercilessly edited..." I've been polite, and sincere, and by your responses - honestly confused. The only thing I can think of is that you saw my accidental "save page" on Netk's talk page, before I was done, and got all worked up, even though I responded on your talk page to clarify, once I saw the concern. To my knowledge I have never disregarded you. I've actually sought you out because I have liked your usual thoughtful approach to things here. I'm serious, this whole discussion leaves me flabbergasted. But anyway... I'll ask again, What do you feel I haven't responded to, and I'll be happy to try to clarify. (Though no guarantees it will be immediate, though I'll try. I am finishing a rather long response to someone else, and then I really should go - life calls : ) - jc37 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm off : ) Perhaps I'll be back later today. I hope you have a great day. - jc37 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Given this, this, and especially this, as well as the semi-active discussions on the WIkiProject's main talk page, I think things have calmed down quite a bit, and I no longer see a current purpose to needing: Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. I don't claim that it was responsible for the cooling of tensions, but I won't discount it either. (We cannot, as far as I know, determine who may have read the page, and at this point it doesn't matter anyway.)
  • Note: Please feel free to delete Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (AFAIK, you and I were the only contributors, not that that matters in this case, I presume.)
  • I'll copy what was on the talk page there to here, in case there was something further you wanted to discuss (in which case, I'm all ears : )
  • Once the discussion is done (I'll leave that determination to you, at this point), feel free to archive this discussion as you would normally (as you mentioned above), at your convenience.

The following two sub-sections are from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion:

Disambiguation Discussion

I combined the talk page entries on the main side of this page in order to try to collate all the discussion that's been going on. As anyone can tell, a fair amount of zealousness, and borderline incivility has been occurring. I think we all need a sit down with a nice cup of tea, before this goes "too far", and/or "someone" gets blocked over this.

One key principle that I hope comes out of this, beyond the current discussions (which may be fruitful, and I hope they continue) is what to do about the Pre-Crisis DC characters: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Robin, Huntress, Green Arrow, and Speedy. This has been further confused by Infinite Crisis, and those characters' re-appearance.

For now, I'd like to ask a moratorium on creating/moving articles related to this, for at least 48 hours. I think Wikipedia will survive in the meantime : )

Looking forward to the discussions. - jc37 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Um

Half this stuff appears irrelevant, and the issue is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Renaming articles to 'Hero (alter ego)'. I'd advise that we continue discussing it there. This page seems to be focussing on issues regarding users, not the content. Steve block Talk 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that it all related to the discussion in question. And I would think transparency is best. this diff] was what suggested to me that we are coming close to a point of "back room" finger pointing, and not transparent discussion. DO as you will... I just would like to see this resolved positively rather than the apparent current trend. - jc37 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No, there's no back-room finger pointing here, and that's not a good accusation to throw around given the issues you are dragging here. I hadn't even responded to Brian yet, and given the message was for me, it might have been polite to let me address it. I have no idea what you are insinuating with the phrase "the apparent current trend" but if you have a problem with me it might be best to let me know what that problem is. Half of this stuff is entirely unrelated. You have a discussion regarding unrelated categories here, ah, I don't know what you are doing, but that's because you haven't discussed it. You still haven't addressed the fact that you chopped stuff from people's talk pages without asking. That's not polite. User pages shouldn't generally be edited like that. And there is no issue of a lack of transparency, all this stuff is there to start with. There are issues with discussions happening off-wiki elsewhere at the moment, I'd hate to see that start happening here. Provide links to diffs if you have to, but some of the issues you are dragging up again were settled. Not everyone may appreciate having their dirty linen aired the way you are doing so here. I'm sorry, I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but to me this isn't the way to do it. The issue was being discussed at the WikiProject page. Steve block Talk 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't making any accusation. "this diff was what suggested to me that we are coming close to a point of "back room" finger pointing, and not transparent discussion." - suggesting to me that we are coming close, does not accuse that we are. Though I apologise if that somehow wasn't clear. This is an attempt at being proactive. Hoping that we can discuss "before" it gets to the "out of hand" point. As noted on the main part of the page, you yourself have suggested this already...
As to "unrelated", I think they are all related to the naming/categorisation of characters, especially pages which include more than one character, or more than one character name, including the "pre-crisis" characters and their memberships. If I included something not a part of that, please clarify. - jc37 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I give. I don't like this one bit, but you aren't addressing any points I'm making at all so I don't see any point in going further. I'm not clear I've discussed anything on the main page, I'm not even clear what the main page is. I know messages I hadn't even responded to were removed from my talk page, and no-one has explained why. I think asserting that it was about to get out of hand may be assuming bad faith. But I give. There's nothing to discuss here, it's a circular argument. Was the offer to revert you genuine? Steve block Talk 20:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
(Added after copying to Sb's talk page) - I'm not certain what "points" of yours that I am not addressing, feel free to clarify. The "main page" = the "main page" that this talk page discussion was attached to. It was about several comments you made to editors about Civility. (Such as this one.) Hope this helps. - jc37 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent events

(I think I'll try reply to each within your response, for clarity.) - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've followed that convention. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the sub-page, I was going to ask you if you wanted to go down that route. If you want that stuff archived in my talk, I don't care either way.

(interjection) - I wasn't asking you to archive. I was asking you to delete the other page, but I copied the discussion to your talk page for unifications reasons, but more so that you didn't think I was trying to "cut off" the conversation. I also tried to make it clear that what you did was up to you, as far as I was concerned, and was holding no expectations at this point, either for discussion, or whatever. And since you made a point about how deeply you care about archival, I was communicating that if you were done with the conversation, I could be too, and to feel free to archive at your whim. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • JC, I'm not sure what you're telling me here, but the stuff is in my latest talk page archive. You can just as easily pull it back out and put it wherever you want, but it really makes no odds to me where it goes. Per dispute resolution I had indicated that I could see no value in that conversation continuing in it's current form, so no, I would never have thought you were trying to cut off that conversation, I think I managed that on my own. You put it on my talk page, and I archived my talk page, so it ended up there. If you feel it was unseemingly of me to archive my talk page at that point, I'll pull it all back out. I just did what felt right at the time. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In reading your comments, it was looking like you thought I was demanding that you archive the discussion, which was totally the reverse of my intent in what I said. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regards the issues still left, um. I've stated it quite a few times now and you constantly seem to either ignore it, or not appreciate it, which is fair enough, maybe I'm not communicating it well. I'll have one last try.

I saw you remove items from Netk's talk page, and found this puzzling. I then asked you if you had asked his permission to do so. Now, from my end, rather than discuss that or pause and think, you went ahead and removed stuff from my talk page. Now, my chain of thought is this: if someone is asking me why I removed stuff from someone else's talk page, and if I had permission, I wouldn't go and remove stuff from their talk page. I'd sense there was an issue, and I'd talk it through. I'd work out that removing stuff from this user's talk page, after he had raised a query about a similar action elsewhere, might not be best prudent. That you constantly failed to address this point but rather pressed on in a matter that was pretty much resolved anyway then escalated the situation on my end. You constantly disregarded my point and talked over the top of me to the point that there was no point discussing the issue any more.

I hope that clarifies things from my end, and maybe now you can understand why I was so frustrated.

(ij) - Thank you for clarifying how you felt. And I think it does explain where our communication breakdown apparently began. I am going to intentionally not go and look over times in my and your contribution lists in responding. This is so that I can share with you how I felt, just as you have with me.
(ij con't) I think I explained why I was doing what I was doing, so I'll gloss over that for the moment. I was in the middle of working on Netk's talk page, when I realised that the edit summary I just typed would be rather useful to have for the other pages (I was wanting to be thorough, so as to not have anyone think that any favouritism was being shown. I even alphabetised the talk page examples by user on that sub-page). So I did a <shift>+<cursor> in order to copy it in the edit summary box. That apparently saved the page automatically (I'm still not sure how that happened.) I had a replacement already typed up in notepad (the link and the "feel free to revert" note), that I was planning to place on each talk page to let them know what happened, etc. (as I presume you eventually saw). In the middle of this, You left me a quick note asking whether I asked to remove information, before I did so, or something like that. I seem to recall leaving a quick comment letting you know that I had accidentally saved the page before finishing, and that the notice of what I was doing would be placed, so nothing to worry about. As far as I was concerned, you asked, I answered, and since (as I've noted since then) I wasn't violating anything (except for a premature save, which I immediately took care of), and since, while I continued to finish, you didn't seem to have any more comments on it, I thought it was resolved. The apparent vehemence I've received since then has been an utter surprise, to say the very least, though In reading what follows, I'm starting to see at least what the concerns were. Your main concern seems to be about a personal sense of ownership of your talk page. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem was, you didn't respond. The first edit you made to my talk page after I posted my query at yours was this. I'm sorry to pull diffs out like this, but perhaps this is where the problem truly lay. [6]. You state, "As far as I was concerned, you asked, I answered" but that's not how it played out. I asked a question, you then went on and removed stuff from my talk page. You didn't stop and talk to me. That's the simple point from where it all broke down. I fail to understand why you didn't answer my question before you removed stuff from my talk page. The rest of this is the fallout. I'm not certain I'd characterise it as a sense of personal ownership over my talk page, but if that's how you wish to view it, that's fair play. I thought of it as an issue of doing the right thing. If I were to remove something from anyone's talk page, I'd ask first. That just feels like the right thing to do. I guess I therefore extend that same courtesy to myself, but I don't see in that common courtesy a sense of personal ownership. I guess it's more a sense of context, that things are said in one context, like the context of a user talk page, that aren't the same when placed in another context, and maybe it's polite to check before removing words from their context. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think, as these are distinct points in several individual comments below, I'll defer to those answers rather than reiterating "en masse" here. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't generally edit other people's user pages in such a manner without checking first,

(ij) - can you give me a reference? or is this just a "common knowledge" thing that I'm apparently unaware of? - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's at WP:USER. But you indicate below that you don't see user talk pages as covered by that. That's perhaps a flaw in the guidance and I'm willing to concede that. I take it to apply to talk pages, but maybe it's not taken that way by you. At this point in the discussion it's redundant anyway. Had this conversation begun earlier this issue would have been hashed out a lot easier. I'm not going to search through for diffs at the village pump where people say stuff like, I was discussing this with so and so on their talk page, and after so and so agreed we decided to move the discussion here. To me it is a convention, it appears it isn't to you. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Internal editing of comments (besides formatting syntax, and possibly typos, but that varies from person to person), is generally frowned upon. Simple blanking is generally frowned upon. I moved the comments. I didn't edit them internally, and I didn't just blank them. And I also left a comment on each page letting it be known what I was doing (and reminding everyone that reversion is possible, and of course they were welcome to do so). I feel that I was following the convention. That said, I also think I understand your perspective. To you (I think), it may have felt like page blanking, which of course, would be a "bad idea". I don't think it was, since "moving sections" is not equal to "blanking". (We do it in articles all the time.) Our issue here isn't the action, but the communication breakdown that followed after it, I think. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

and whilst not all users are overly bothered, some are. I guess I'm one. I tried to raise concerns, but you seemed to brush them aside,

(ij) So, what I saw as responding and attempting to clarify, you saw as "brushing aside" your concerns? - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. You response was secondary to other actions which brushed aside my initial question. I asked you if you asked permission to remove stuff from a user's page. Your next action was to remove stuff from my page, hence my colouring of it as disregarding me. Probably this is the point where I should have walked away, or one of us should, but we didn't, we kept going at it and that's definitely something I'll be learning from. We never really got past those initial impressions. You felt you had resolved the issue, I felt you hadn't. I'm disappointed that I didn't step back and walk away, but I'm also aware enough to know these things happen, by which I mean that sometimes that doesn't happen and the situation escalates. And it's always the innocuous things that start it off. I suppose people are so busy avoiding the bear traps they miss the little thorns. And I guess every now and again those thorns have poison tips. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify "I should have walked away"/"step back and walk away"? And I think the rest is partially a result of typed communication, in which emotion can only be guessed at (hence why chatrooms/messengers require emoticons... Perhaps Wikipedia should have its own emoticon designs. (I've seen some users using ones of their own design.) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

and appeared to paint my actions as perhaps unhelpful. That didn't appear to me to be politic, since it's not clear your actions were helpful.

(ij) which actions? The only time I recall commenting on how helpful something was, was that I was uncertain if your choice to arbitrarily revert everyone's talk page was "helpful". Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. But I would have preferred that each would be allowed to make their own choice, rather than you make it for them. I guess to turn the question around, did you leave them a note explaining your purpose in the auto-reversion, as I did when I made the change? Honestly I wonder if some of them wouldn't have been more happy to have the discussion moved from their decentralised talk pages, and unified in one location. I doubt we'll know, especially since any answer now will be coloured by yours and my long discussion. Out of all of this, that arbtrary reversion was the only thing that made me "double-take". And if anyone asked me to revert the page for them, do you honestly believe I would not have? I seriously don't think I have acted like an ogre in any way here, though it's would seem that you seem to feel so. My intention (as stated) was to help. And what I did is not only not unprecedented, but even has been suggested, in order to calm a tense situation. It's not "airing dirty laundry", it's "getting it all out in the open". Otherwise, fear festers, and people start to act in ways that they likely would not under other circumstances. Netk, apparently had good intentions, and that's all been/being resolved. And except for this discussion, it would seem that the hurt feelings have been pretty much healed over. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is all areas where we are going to have to agree to disagree. You make a good point that maybe I should have left a note when I reverted your removals, but I haven't seen anyone complain yet. Your point regarding dirty linen and out in the open is subjective. I hope you'll agree with me it's possible people could have taken offence. As to your actions being suggested, yes, perhaps they are. That said, we also just had a huge arb-com case where someone tried the same thing and it blew up into a case that arb-com had to tackle. So maybe it doesn't always work, and maybe I had that in my head. I've certainly never seen it applied to user talk pages before. I don't doubt that Netk had good intentions. Mind, maybe I should reconsider involving myself in these issues. I'm clearly no good at handling disputes. No matter how many times I edit my comments, I still seem to cause offence. The weird thing was, WP:AGF is supposed to take care of that. People aren't supposed to read anything other than the purest meaning, but as this situation proves, that's not always the case. It's quite clear it's possible to be civil and assume good faith and still engage in a row. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. And I would like to state, that I think if you decide to "pull away" from dispute resolution, you do yourself, and moreso Wikipedia, a great dis-service. Communication breakdowns are going to happen. Even the bestest of best friends have them. It's how we deal with them after they happen which shows ability and character. And personally, I think you're doing fine. So don't let this series of discussion cause you to doubt yourself. Just do what you've been doing in sincerity and good faith, and I think you'll be fine. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

People had been coming to me with issues, I had been trying to sort them as even handedly as possible. If you had a problem with my handling, I would have appreciated a note.

(ij) - Excluding the interaction between you and me, I cannot think of any time I have had a problem with your attempts at dispute resolution, etc. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair play. I think the part where you removed the issue Brian had raised with me that I hadn't as yet responded to led me to believe you weren't convinced by my handling. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see how that happened. I moved it because it was another comment as a part of the ongoing discussion (my previous "transparancy" comment). But I can totally see how it could seem like I was "taking it out of your hands" (even though I was inviting everyone to comment). My apologies, that was never my intention. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, you stated that you responded on my talk page, but you didn't. Not at my end. You carried on with what you were doing, rather than pause for thought.

(ij) - I did, as noted above. But it sounds like it wasn't the response that you were hoping for. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't, per above. Hmmm. Okay, maybe I see where this is all falling apart. You figure the note you left about unifying the discussion was note enough? Okay, fair play. Right...now it all makes sense. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (bewildered) I am not sure how to take the last comment. Understandingly, or frustratedly sarcastic? (It all depends on whether "Right" and "now" are accented.) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And every comment you made after that looked to me like you were riding roughshod over me.

(ij) - I understand the feeling, and was starting to feel that in turn. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think I said somewhere above that I feel I wasn't getting my points across clearly enough. I apologise for that. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I get what you were trying to do, but that doesn't mean you can ignore people's concerns.

(ij) - I wasn't ignoring yor concerns, as I hope you can now see. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate it. We sure spent a lot of time talking across each other and not communicating. You seemed to me to adopt a patronising tone, which you assure me was not intended, I seemed to you to be overly vehement, which again, was not intended. I was trying to convey my lack of understanding as to why you were removing things from my talk page. That we weren't communicating well escalated the situation to a point where I figured it was best to walk away. I could not work out a way to convey what I wanted in a manner you would accept. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "We sure spent a lot of time talking across each other and not communicating." I hope you don't take it the wrong way when I say I laughed when reading that. More of a relief laugh, I think, than anything. I think we're finally understanding where and how this broke down. And besides that, I guess it just struck me funny. As for the rest, first, I rarely look for someone to "accept" what I am saying, I merely would like them to "understand". I'm a firm believer in free will, and you're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others to do the same. (And for such "in-house" situations at Wikipedia, we have the 5 pillars). Second, if ever you are puzzled or confused by anything I may have said or done, ask. If you still are confused or puzzled, ask me to continue to clarify. AFAIK, I've always responded to sincere requests for clarity (and even a few obviously not-so-sincere requests, but then I tend to hope for the best : ) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to acknowledge that you were not best placed to remove stuff from my talk page that did not involve you.

(ij) - Well that was never brought up before. "that did not involve" me? Please pardon my shock at that statement. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? I don't get what shocks you about that. I simply don't get how you see that you could remove stuff from my talk page that you were not a party to. Like, if you posted a message to my tallk page, I'd have no issue with you removing it, but where the message wasn't from you, and wasn't to you, I'm not sure that you're best placed removing it. Some of the issues were still live, and so I think it's reasonable to wonder whether people would feel confused as to what had happened to them. Does that make more sense now? Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's only partially how I took that statement, and I'm still not certain if I took it incorrectly. It sounded to me like you were saying (as I mention below) that I was "sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong". Which to me was a rather shocking statement. Since I feel that (except for certain isolated concerns of the foundation) that is entirely contrary to the wikipedia concept. As for others' confusion, I felt the note on the page was to clarify that. Anyone reading that page would find that link, and should then instantly find what they were looking for. (It's done all the time, etc etc.) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The standard way of doing these things is by inviting people to a central area. Let the discussion grow organically. Provide diffs if you like. You can move an issue to a sub-page, yes I have seen that done before,

(ij) All of which, I believe I did, and I believe I did them in good faith. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not, and never have questioned that your actions were in good faith. That doesn't mean I can't, in good faith, raise concerns, and in good faith, expect those concerns to be discussed. I had already posted a note to the effect that we should make the discussion at the WikiProject the central one, so I got a bit baffled by the talk page removals too. I think had you started by moving the WikiProject discussion I'd have seen where it was all going. Not that that matters. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, concerns and criticisms are at the heart of WP:AGF. I also don't think I didn't/haven't responded to you. But I think we've figured such things out now? My original intention was to do all the pastes "at once" (I had all the pages open in edit mode, intending to hit "save all" in succession), in order to hopefully remove the possibility of confusion of a "work-in-progress" (everyone would see the various talk page changes "at once", etc). But because you were "online" and "active", I had to wait with some (like my talk page, and I did the wikiproject talk page at the very last), and I think I missed some, as well, in trying to simultaneously respond to you. For example, I know I missed several references to the "Nuklon" page moves, which was where most of this "mess" (as Netk called it) started. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

and I have to admit I found your tone patronising there,

(ij) It wasn't meant to be so. It was (and is) rather as a result of shock at the responses I was getting. I think one of the most disturbing was the (I don't know how to else describe it) petulency at the upper and lower case "b" typo. (Something like: "And I missed where you apologised for misspelling my name") I hope you can see how that appeared. I addressed it, and obviously never meant to hurt your feelings by a typo, and I hope I conveyed that. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's probably not much to do here but apologise. I think what concerned me was that the links wouldn't reach my user page and then we started exchanging comments so quick it started to come out wrong. I initially meant it humorously but the conversation disintegrated so quickly that it became more than it was meant to be. Another sign I should have walked away earlier. A part of me is going to be very glad when Mr Griswold becomes an admin because I hope it means a lot of these issues won't land at my door. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You can, of course, choose how you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, but as I said above, I think removing yourself from dispute resolution does a great dis-service to yourself and Wikipedia. I think I explained it well enough up top, so I won't reiterate. (Though, if you would like me to further clarify... : ) - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

but convention is that you check with someone before you edit their user pages.

(ij) There is a difference between a user page, and a user talk page. And by convention, we edit user talk pages all the time. Just as you did when you left me this note. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. Also, leaving messages on a talk page is different to removing them, I hope you can agree. I remember when Radiant! left, and there were messages removed from Radiant's talk page that we decided were best left there for Radiant to remove. I guess I just have a different convention to you. To me, the user page guidance applies. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I commented on this above as well. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You can reply here, I'm watching this page.

(ij) Nod, and I am doing so. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it was sincere. Though I have to honestly say, that considering at the time I was strongly feeling your "vehemence"about editing your talk page at all, this felt like a slap across the face. I decided at the time, however, to hope that it wasn't, and attempt to "move forward", since bringing up another examples of "hurt feelings" didn't seem like a good idea at the time (more fuel for the fire, as it were, I think we had plenty, without adding more). I comment about it now because I didn't want you to believe something that wasn't true, and (more importantly) I'm somewhat convinced that things are not as "tense" for you as they may have been previously in this discussion. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I've managed to convey things from my end, and I sincerely hope you can understand them. To be honest, as far as I'm concerned the issue is over and done with, but I pretty much saw the issue as done with before your actions. Whether that was the case I guess we'll never know, but what's done is done. Best to just shake hands and move on. Steve block Talk 10:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made your feelings clear.
First, let me apologise. I should have guessed how possessive you felt about your talk page when you last asked me why I unified our discussion there on another occasion. (I note that you archived the elemental discussion, of which that was a part.) I don't intend to make that mistake again. I'm sorry your feelings apparently were hurt because I edited your talk page, and left you a note, rather than engaging in a discussion first (which I don't think would have been feasible with all the parties involved, but that's "neither here nor there", anymore). I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt when I typoed your username. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt when you felt that I was somehow deprecating your ability at dispute resolution. I'm sorry that you felt that I was somehow ignoring your concerns. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt because I was apparently sticking my nose in where you felt it didn't belong. I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt for all of these reasons, and any others that I may have missing, or not understood. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean to say about the archive of the elementals thing,I thought that thread was dead, is it still alive? I also think you seem to be making the unified discussion thing out into something I didn't feel it was. I was merely confused as to what you were doing, but that was a dead issue by this point. Whether you should have discussed anything with me regarding my talk page is your call. Your choice of terms in colouring this aren't ones I would choose, but thems the breaks. I apologise that it has got to the point where you feel beholden to proffer numerous apologies, especially ones for things neither said nor done. Wherever I gave the impression that was necessary, I want to strike it and apologise. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Same here, and striking out a line above that I personally think should be un-said. (You say something similar below.) I think it would be a shame if either of us decided to avoid each other's posts due to this. My opinion of you as an editor hasn't changed. Just because we may disagree, doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss. (Honestly out of contrary discussion typically comes the best results : ) - That said, of course you are free to do as you will in this. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the elementals, until we have finished the merge, and making the list (nether of which has been done at all), as far as I know, it's ongoing. I have to admit, that I've been trying to finish "other" tasks before jumping into that one, so I haven't even much started on it. There are a bunch of comics' related projects that I have on my "back burner" that I haven't gotten to yet. Sigh @ only so many hours in a day. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I NEVER intended to hurt your feelings. And I am sincerely sorry that you somehow feel that that was my intention. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair play. I certainly felt there were issues that needed discussing, and you just as certainly felt there weren't, and maybe that's where it all boils down. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • At first glance I would disagree with that charaacterisation, but atm, I'm not certain. Could you clarify? - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, up until now, always felt that you were an editor who's actions were typically rather thought-filled, and even tempered. I have been in disbelief, shocked, dismayed, flabbergasted, stunned, surpised, and honestly feeling a bit hurt and insulted myself by this discussion. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess that makes two of us. I repeat my apology again, for any and all offence caused. That was never my intention. My intention was to get to the bottom of what you were doing and discuss it. From my point of view, without saying too much but hoping you give me the benefit of the doubt, I felt what you were doing could backfire. Still, again, that's neither here nor there. I should have walked away and left you to it. I guess, had you simply discussed it with me first it might have all been sorted, but I also concede there was no onus on you to do so. Since you acknowledge I was already attempting to resolve the dispute, and that you had no problems with my attempts, I'm a little confused as to why you wouldn't want to discuss it with me, but there's no law says you have to. I guess you saw "Moved several related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (Feel free to revert if you wish.)" as explanation enough, where as I was maybe looking for, look, how about this, I've had a think and I've moved all these discussions over here, in the hope that this will get all the issues out in the open and we can... but I don't know. This probably gets us nowhere. I guess being live the same time as you I was reacting to things in situ rather than seeing the grand picture. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My intent was never to not include you. It's that I just didn't realise that I had to say anything for you to feel included. I thought that was automatically presumed. And I don't know how it somehow was construed that I didn't want to discuss with you. (I'm not exactly sure what you wanted discussed, or when this discussion was to have occurred.) Part of my confusion is that I think I'm fairly known to someone who likes to discuss. And what really confuses me on this, is that you've been a part of many of the discussions I've been involved in (some of which are still ongoing). So yes, I'm confused. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You offer to "shake hands" and "move on". As I said in my last edit summary to your talk page, the ball's in your court, so if that is what you wish, that is perfectly ok with me. If you continue the discussion, I'll respond, if you don't wish to, I'll respect that. If you wish this remainder of the discussion removed from sight, I'll do so, else I'll likely leave it here until I feel that my talk page has become too long. The choices are yours. - jc37 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I ain't fussed what you do with the discussion. All I can offer is that I'd just as soon sort this out than not. I guess that means you're in possession now. I'm off to bed now, so, and I'd best clarify this is meant jokingly, but also in a bid to avoid any more communication breakdowns, don't be offended if you don't hear from me a while. Steve block Talk 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if you're asking my preference... I'd like to finish the discussion to the point where we've eliminated confusion, but to stop before we're just restating everything with a smile, just to restate : ) - As for the discussion itself, my preference would be that "when we've decided that confusion has been eliminated", you recall your archive of the discussion, paste this to it, and rearchive as you normally would (transparency, and ease of reading. Who knows, maybe someone else may read this and learn about communication. I'm sure we both have : ) - I intend to call up your archive of the several discussions and paste it (with this discussion as well) to a sub-page talk archive the way I did with another long set of discussions I've had (and because I do think that the discussion has become long enough for archiving). This way we both have a unified copy. That's my preference, what you do, is of course, up to you. - jc37 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I keep thinking about your comment that you felt I didn't want to discuss with you. So I've attempting to build a timeline. I hope it helps.

  • the accidental save:
    • [[7]], at 19:05
  • The "simultaneous" save page on several talk pages:
  • My response to your query:

Note that from 19:05 - 19:30 these are all my contributions (though as I am not an admin, I no longer have the edit history from the deleted page). I have to say, I don't remember seeing the yellow bar (talk page notice) for your first comment, so I'm not sure at what point I saw your notice. I had quite a few windows open, and I was doing a lot of switching back and forth.

Your first comment:

After that:

  • I removed the copy of the discussion on my page, since I responded on yours:
  • I added from my talk page (I realised that I should probably check my own talk page.):
  • And then finally the wikiProject:

I note that your next comment was at 19:32. That was apparently a rather busy minute, since as I look at that diff, my response to you was already on your talk page.

From there, I guess the attempts at discussion began. (With my next contribution, also being my next response to you, at 20:13: [18]).

Though I seem to remember having this weird 2 page discussion with you, simultaneously on the now-deleted page, and your talk page.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 10:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's much more value in going over this. I just wrote a really long reply, but I've blanked it. We're in mountaineering equipment at the top of a molehill. Like I say, I should have walked away, per dispute resolution. The issue started to get personal very quickly. I'm not sure why. I don't think it matters now though. Anyway, sorry to tie up your time over this issue. Steve block Talk 13:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not upset, at this point, just still somewhat confused. Part of me wishes I could have seen the now blanked response whatever it was (I guess I always have the wont to understand : )
And at this point I guess I'll not know what your response(s) are to mine in the discussion.
In any case, I'll respect your wish to now "end" the discussion, if that is what you wish. I'll wait a day and then archive this as I outlined above. - jc37 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see this is still here, I don't know if you are wanting me to reply to this or not, but... Steve block Talk 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was in the middle of several (a dozen or so?) rather lengthy discussions. I guess I haven't prioritised them lately, and was doing some mainspace editing, and trying to catch up on CfD : ) - jc37 20:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're still confused over, but I'll try and go round it one more time. I think we just got our wires crossed. You might want to take a look at WP:VANDAL Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. That's probably where I was coming from, although I couldn't source the page itself at the time, I've already stated I felt this was a guideline. From there it all fell apart because to my eye you removed a load of comments from talk pages, and it wasn't entirely clear to me what you were doing. I think had you stopped what you were doing and discussed the issue with me when you saw my message, the mess might have been avoided, but like I say, this is just going round in circles. My references to walking away were meant to refer to the dispute you and me found ourselves in, I wish I had had the sense to walk away earlier than I did. It was clear that you were pushing ahead with what you were doing, so any attempt at discussion became cramped by that, and I should have just bitten my tongue. My walking away and letting what you were doing continue would have equally allowed the situation resolve itself amicably. I hope that maybe now clears up any confusion. Take it easy. Steve block Talk 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "I think had you stopped what you were doing and discussed the issue with me when you saw my message..." - please note this diff: [19] (as I noted above), which you did respond to 2 minutes later [20], but at this point, I'm guessing that you may have forgotten it "in the shuffle".
  • Also as I noted above, I didn't "delete", I "moved" (with a courtesy link of where they were "moved" to), which obviously isn't vandalism. But I do understand the confusion. In the end, I think this was a mis-communication that "found legs". I don't know if "disengaging" would have helped clarify the mis-communication (typically discussion is required for understanding), but I think I understand your thought. Anyway, thanks for the clarification, and have a great day : ) - jc37 20:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it followed this edit, [21] which made the whole thing redundant, and is my point. I also notice you've just moved other comments I have made here to a talk page where I hadn't posted them. Given that I've already expressed my concern at you doing this, I find it a little frustrating. I'm also disturbed that for the sake of transparency and context you don't indicate that you are copying such posts. Still, hope you have a great day. Steve block Talk 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (boggle) - I was doing as you requested? I suppose I could have left a note on your talk page as well (as I did on his), but as you requested the move... Anyway, you know where it is now, I presume? As for that diff, looking ath the timeline above, do you see that I wouldn't have seen your comment until after I opened a new page? (Though as I mentioned above, I don't actually recall at what point I noticed your comment.) 22 is between 05 and 26/27. - jc37 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah well, then you misunderstood me. I meant that the comment you left on the cfd page could perhaps be moved to the cfd talk page. Perhaps my comment was a little ambiguous, although I'm not clear your discussion equals my comments, but it looks like communication between us is still bedevilled by misreadings. I stand by the idea that it wouldn't have hurt to have contextualised the discussion though. As to your other point, as your comment made clear at the time, you had already seen my comment, so I don't see any value in discussing that you might not have seen it. But like I say, this is getting nowhere. I get the feeling you aren't going to see my point of view on this at all, so I think it's best to call it a day. Steve block Talk 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "As your comment made clear at the time..." So I commented, but wait, I didn't comment? I think you're right. This is obviously not getting anywhere. I even took the time to list out the timeline, and all the edits to show what happened. The bottom line seems to be snubbed feelings of someone who apparently mis-read a situation. Your point, as I read it, is that you feel I was wrong in moving comments to another page. And further you seem to think I ignored you somehow, even though I've shown that I didn't. I don't even want to analyse the issue with the typo of your username. I've apologised that your feelings were hurt. I've attempted to even find out what your issues were, and have tried to help you understand. I think I've bent over backwards to try to aid in your understanding. At this point I seriously wonder it's possible to assuage your hurt ego, and/or clear up your misconceptions. But that said... I'm still here.. Feel free to continue to misread. Feel free to continue to accuse me of ignoring you in a discussion of thousands of words (not counting the discussion you've already archived, we're at over 7,000 words so far), even in a situation in which you said that I was not required to consult with you. Feel feel free to "call it a day", and continue to bear these un-resolved feelings. Whichever you would like to do. In any case, as I said, I'm still here, happily contributing to this thing we all call Wikipedia. Despite what you apparently believe, I do wish you a great day. As I said awhile back, I hope that whatever is truly bothering you, resolves itself in a positive fashion for you. - jc37 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Jc, I'm sorry, but if you feel the situation here is that you need to "assuage (my) hurt ego" then clearly there are problems. I'm not here over an affront to my ego. I'm here because I'm trying to get across the point that it isn't good practise to remove comments from user talk pages. Perhaps the reason why we are so clearly misreading each other is that I'm here trying to get you to see that point and you are trying to guess my mood. I think there's guidance somewhere that we comment on the issue, not the user. I'm not sure what on earth you seem to mean by stating that "Despite what you apparently believe, I do wish you a great day." Perhaps you could either show me where I bluntly made the point that I don't believe that to be true, or simply apologise for the lack of grace in the comment. However I slighted you, I am truly sorry, but my underlying point is still that it's bad practise to remove comments from user talk pages. We don't do it in arbitration cases, in requests for comments, in any other instances. Copy, yes. Provide diffs, yes. Remove, not really. Steve block Talk 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's interesting that you now are just focused on the moving ("removing", in your terms), now, and not on the fact that you felt you should have been consulted, since I think I've shown that I responded to you in good time.
  • As for the rest, think I'll just point at the discussion above, including: "and whilst not all users are overly bothered, some are. I guess I'm one. I tried to raise concerns, but you seemed to brush them aside,". Though I'm sure that there are more examples throughout.
  • Honestly, I am seriously wondering if this discussion is doing any good, at this point, or if it's just "continuing to continue". I understand that you feel I was wrong in moving (unifying, actually) the discussions. I disagree with you. I'll note this comment: "That's perhaps a flaw in the guidance and I'm willing to concede that", and suggest perhaps your interpretation isn't correct:
  • "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so."
  • Notice how in both examples it makes a clear distinction between user pages and talk pages. And finally, I once again remind you that they were all welcome to revert their own pages (whether I reminded them of it or not).
  • I wonder... When you decided to move a discussion from CfD (I'm calling it "moving", rather than "removing", though in the discussion above, you seem to prefer "removing"), were you thinking of this discussion at all? It would seem that you did exactly what you seem to wish to tell me is "not good practice", which would seem to be a "double standard". In addition, as I stated in the discussion, I had intended to leave that discussion there and start new ones at the places suggested by those who commented. I'll "feel free to revert", in this case, just as I suggested to you in the case of your talk page. Oh, and just for the sake of communication, I'm not upset in any way, just bemused at this point.
  • Anyway... Besides that, do you still have further concerns? - jc37 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'm fairly bemused as well. I have tried to call it quits quite a few times but you kept posting statements as to being confused, and so I kept trying to clear it up when it's clear I should have just left alone. We obviously aren't going to agree. The point about cfd is somewhat different, on those you get a whacking big template that says don't edit, but again, you'll probably feel that you weren't editing within the template so that makes it okay, and to be honest, I can't contradict that view. We just have different opinions on the spirit of Wikipedia. I absolutely have no idea where this discussion is going either, and each time we get into it it drifts from whatever the original point was. You're absolutely right that I've focussed on the moving this time, because to be honest I have no idea what the original issue was. I think it was simply that I was asking you a question and it never got cleared up, something which I humbly should have let go. You seem to feel yourself blameless, and I'll respect that. I apologise for tying up so much of your time with this. For my part in this I truly am sorry. This seems to be one instance where I for one couldn't walk away, which is wrong. Rest assured I'm putting that right. I've certainly learnt I can't do dispute resolution, which is something I should thank you for. Anyway, fair play. Take it easy, and see you on another page where the weather is sunnier. Steve block Talk 11:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reading that back, it's still a little harsh, and I have no idea where it's coming from. I don't mean to say you see yourself as blameless, and I hope you'll disregard that point. Maybe you had it right and my ego is hurting. Who knows. Who cares. Next time I think I'll seek a mediator. Or a therapist. Cheers. Steve block Talk 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Adeline André

I'm having trouble added this AfD to today's list. Can I get a little help? DesertSky85451 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I tried to do step 1 from memory. Whoops. I'll go back to cutting and pasting to cutting and pasting the correct templates again. DesertSky85451 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, steve you want to know my real name???Brian Boru is awesome 21:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/User_talk%7ESteve_block_Archive_8_e072.html"

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu