User talk:SnowFire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 04:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Shadow Hearts: Covenant

I think I rather miswrote that statement; I meant to say that the game contained considerably less elements of horror than the previous game. I remember SH-1 being much creepier than SH-2.. And I know it was bloodier(rated M, in fact, due to gore, though the subsequent games are all rated teen).--Vercalos 04:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. No big deal in any case, I just thought that it sounded more like an innocent error. Point taken. SnowFire 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solipsism and

Greetings SnowFire

Thank you for the heads up on the linkspamming. I guess I'm not starting out making a very good impression. My apologies for that. I'm not usually that slow on the up-take. But now that I ‘get it' I see no other recourse than to leave.

I didn't join Wikipedia to cause problems. I joined because I though I would actually be able to contribute, but then I was under a false impression of what the Wikipedia really was. I found Wikipedia because someone else had left a link to my Poly-Solipsism web site as an external reference and I was flattered by the gesture and the recognition. When I checked the web site out, and saw the "discussion" tab at the top of each topic, I thought "Cool!" an encyclopedia with a discussion board! I was looking forward to a honest discussion with intelligent people.

Oops! That is not what the Discussion page is all about! You can imagine my dismay to discover the "No Original Research" policy. I'm afraid just about everything I have to contribute is my own work. So now I am at a bit of a loss as to how I can be of much use to Wikipedia.

But before leaving I do wish to state that it looks like the those responsible for the Solipsism article appear to be anti-solipsism. Other than the brief statement at the beginning of the article, which seems to be only a token attempt to state what Solipsism is, practically the whole page attempts to refute solipsism and ridicule solipsist. I deleted everything on my user and talk pages, but I left my explanation and reasoning on the solipsism 'discussion' page in hopes of educating others on the fundamental reasons why solipsism is so difficult to dispute, and why I find it to be a self evident truth.

Regards

cckeiser 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So I take it that you were the one who added that link before? Part of the reason that it was speedily reverted was because it was posted as an anonymous IP address. I took a look at the link and- apologies- but it seemed to be nonsense. I probably would have taken a closer look had it come from a user. That said, if you're referring to Poly-solipsism in the talk page, er, I didn't ask you to remove that link, in case there was any confusion. The Talk page has considerably looser rules. That said, I will say that as you seem to have noticed yourself, you're talking to yourself to some degree there. If you have ideas on how to make the article better, that's great, but Wikipedia isn't intended as a place to straight-up evangelize.
For what it's worth, you can probably have your solipsist ideas on your Talk page without much debate. That said, yes, Wikipedia isn't quite the place for posting your own ideas, or even really having a solipsism discussion. If there is one, the goal is toward establishing principles agreed upon by all sides, which often entails what is clearly true vs. what is debateable.
It's funny you say that you think that the current Solipsism article is anti-solipsism; I think it's horrendously pro-Solipsism in parts. I also think that the academic language is painful; that article seriously needs to be written in a more accessible style. But different sides of the argument, I suppose. SnowFire 07:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


More confusion:
I am not sure which link you are talking about? I removed the links from the Solipsism talk page, and from my user page because of your suggestion to review the linkspam policy. I signed both of them at the time they were posted. If there was another link to my poly-solipsism web site here on the Wikipedia, I did not provide it; someone else did. ( A very intelligent someone else! ;o)
I am not ‘sneaky', I don't use an anonymous nick to hide behind, and I use my name connected to anything I do.If I do something wrong, I will take the responsibility for my actions. But I also expect the honor when I do something right.
I don't really trust anyone who uses an anonymous nick to hide behind. That's just my "thing."
Yes, I did notice I was talking to myself on the Solipsism talk page. Which is quite appropriate considering the subject matter!
Originally I had provided the definitions for discussion because of all the questions and misunderstandings about solipsism all over that talk page. Ok, I now realize that was an error as the discussion page is not the discussion forum I first thought it was, but I believe my essays on the subject do clear up the misunderstandings and answer the questions posed, so I left them there for others to consider.
Hopefully they will take a little of the anti-solipsism edge off the rest of the article if anyone bothers to read the talk page.
Of course, because of our own fundamental solipsism, we perceive that article differently. You think it is too pro, and I perceive it as too con. That is the problem with the NPOV policy, there isn't one. If we have any thoughts on any subject we from an opinion which is almost impossible to ignore, especially on controversial subject, and damn near impossible on controversial philosophies!
But yes, I agree, Wikipedia is not the right forum for promoting new ideas by anyone, even if their ideas happen to be true. This is just not the right forum to do so.
And yes, I also agree the "academic language is painful; that article seriously needs to be written in a more accessible style."
I'm afraid most of the articles I have read on Wikipedia seem to be written by someone more interested in showing off his/her esoteric knowledge and writing abilities than really explaining the subject matter. I can do that too, but I choose to follow the KISS principle, cut the crap, and write for the "The Barmaid."
People do not come to an encyclopedia to be confused with rhetoric. They come looking for simple answers explained in simple language. Ok, so sometimes the answers ane a bit complicated, that doesn't mean the language has to be.
Ok, I'm leaving now. I only stopped by for your reply and to answer any questions you may have had. I'm glad I did, but now I must move on. I have a philosophy that needs promoting, and the world is waiting to be saved from itself. ;O)
My e-mail works if you require anything more, or wish to continue a discussion on Solipsism.
Do no harm.
cckeiser 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Chuck
Well, good luck. The link I was referring to was this one: [1] , done by 194.83.56.158 . SnowFire 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm back again.
Is this the link you removed?
The Lost Art of Communication
Sorry, but it's not mine, and I did not provide it.
My web site is at: http://www.poly-solipsism.com
It occurred to me that you may be under a false impression considering your statement "I took a look at the link and- apologies- but it seemed to be nonsense."
So now I am wondering if you actually did check out Poly-Solipsism or was it this other link that you found to be nonsense? ( I haven't read it myself yet.) Or do you find the concept of Solipsism itself to be nonsense?
I have a request.
I would like you to read what I have to say on Solipsism, and on my philosophy of Poly-Solipsism, and if you agree it is pretty much the epitome of Solipsism, I would like you to add the link to my web site as an external reference on the article.
I believe it is only proper to give balance, since the only other external link is somewhat hostile to Solipsism.
An article on Solipsism in Wikipedia should not be written by anyone who holds the concept in such contempt.
Where is the NPOV?
I would rewrite the whole article myself if given the opportunity, but...well...you know I am not allowed to do so as just about everything I have to say is "Original Research", and I don't particularly have a NPOV myself. ;O)
I would still love to do it though. I think I could really do it justice!
cckeiser 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


(cont at lower indent level)

It's entirely possible to despise a concept yet still be able to discourse about it fairly. I can think of plenty of political ideologies I dislike, yet could passably argue for in a debate. Similarly, pages on the four humours and the like can and should be updated by doctors who can be sure to remind the populace that these techniques don't actually work, but here was the theory as used before.

Anyway. I did read some of your website. First, I'd like to point out that poly-solipsism isn't quite traditional solipsism, which is okay. It does have some odd effects, though- if we are each in our own universe, how come they seem to share so much in common? How come it seems that I can easily affect your universe?

Secondly. I think you deeply misinterpret what Quantum Physics is saying. Just because reality is very, very strange at heart does not mean that we all live in different realities. Again, reality seems to behave oddly consistently from a distance for something we theoretically have control over in your system.

Again, I'm not really up for a huge debate, but my experience has taught me to be a universalist in both matters of science and morality. It is always wrong for slavery to exist, and everywhere; and that table in front of me, while it might have odd effects happen to it thanks to observers and outside interference (as well as people who don't even know of its existence, because they are light-years away), definitely exists.

After years of searching for a Universal Philosophy and taking into account the beliefs of just about everyone, I have come to one conclusion: The Truth is what you believe it to be. Every truth is the truth; no matter what it is you believe.

Give it a shot. Try believing that you are now a millionaire, or that I am solipsist. ;-) SnowFire 22:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not up for a huge debate either, especially here, but considering your reply to Poly-Solipsism, I think you just proved you really are a Solipsist! You only saw what it was you wanted to see, and only understood what you already believed. All my replies to your comments are on the web site, they were always there, you just didn't see them.
We are all Solipsist in our own minds.
We believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe.
cckeiser 02:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth v. Kneeland

Interesting article, thanks for putting it up. If you can whip it into shape quickly, you might consider putting it (or an article on Kneeland) up for Do you know inclusion at Template talk:Did you know. I say quickly because there is a 120 hour rule from creation/de-stubbing. GRBerry 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information; never knew about that. Well, if it might go up there, I'd want to make absolutely certain first that the claim at the top of the article is correct. I know as a stone-cold fact that Kneeland was the last person jailed for blasphemy in the States, but I've seen fewer references to him being the last convicted. It's possible that those references were merely hyperbolizing, and that somewhere later somebody got convicted of blasphmey and let off with a 50 dollar fine or something. Let me confirm that before I propose it. SnowFire 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On June 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commonwealth v. Kneeland, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] No problem

I try not to make any assumptions about why whatever happens happens, I just put back the tags if they are still needed.... -999 (Talk) 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It should be noted"

AWB is not a bot; it requires review of every edit, and I did try to skip the ones where, as you note, it was necessary for the concept or taken from a specific quote. Sorry if I missed a couple. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black box (systems)

I know I've already stated that I disagree with the slant you're taking in the wizard article, but I've noticed that you added to the "Magic" disambig page with your black box systems theory. Please, can you slow down a bit? I was intending to go around and start looking up references, but I just got back after a weekend where I was only mildly able to pay attention.

I really think that you're taking the wrong tack here. Just because black box systems are perhaps an analogy to explaining Magic use from a historical perspective does not in fact imply that they have anything inherently to do with it, especially "Magic" as a concept (which can totally have people who understand it inside and out, depenending on how they think Magic works). I mean, heck, I don't believe in Magic, but if it did exist, there's no reason why it would need to be "black boxed." Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, but you don't see a "See also: Mustard seed" in the Heaven or Kingdom of God article. I can explain electromagnetic repulsion via analogy to tossing basketballs back and forth while on roller skates, but you do not have a see also on roller skates in that article, because there is not a direct link.

I'm mentioning this here on your talk page because I don't want to be too much the bad guy, running around reverting your stuff, but.... argh. I appreciate that you have been civil and it's refreshing that your stance is based off a desire to cleanly delinate distinctions; it's just that I think your current distinctions are wrong.

Again, I hope I don't come off too nastily here, but can you wait a bit before making more massive changes, and see what others have to say? SnowFire 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an additional link in a "see also" section of a disambiguation page for all references to magic. I see the link as helpful rather than harmful. You've said that you "get it", so can you further explain your issues with it? - Jc37 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (fantasy)

I've gotten involved in the Wizard (fantasy) article via the notice on the project paranormal page. It's quite a mess! If you're still interested, let's see what we can do to make it better! Dreadlocke 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the entire structure of the related articles to be confusing. Do you think we really need two separate articles for Wizards, one "fantasy" and the other under Magician "historical claimants"? I would think a single article would do the trick. (no pun intended...;) Dreadlocke 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on Spoiler warnings

You just voted to keep spoiler tags, but your vote comment says: "I too am opposed to Spoiler tags". Just thought I'd let you know. --Swift 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disciple (disambig) move page.

Not that this is a huge deal, but I left off the big survey format intentionally. I'd hoped that move would have been speedied, since it was a completely non-controversial move that would have solved a double-redirect, and if there was chatter, it didn't need to be done in full out debate format.

Anyway, not to be too direct, but if you do want to oppose the move, can you at least drop off some opinions as to why? (Edit: Upon looking more closely, I see that I may have misread your intent. Sorry if you were only there to help out by adding that format; I got the impression you wanted to oppose the move as well- which maybe you do, but I suppose we'll see.) SnowFire 02:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to oppose the move, and I'm not going to support it either. Since I'm trying to clear out the move request backlog, I'd like to stay impartial on discussions, staying out of things. However, I would like to add that one issue regarding the move is that it has been made possible only because of a not-so-benign move. Of course, not all moves need to be approved via WP:RM, so it's not like you were in the wrong to do that move. However, some may object to your current proposed move (Disciple (disambiguation) → Disciple) if they believe Disciple (Christianity) should be at Disciple. And thus, I feel the survey / discussion section should be there; if no one brings up that objection, the desired move should be performed on August 30 or August 31. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Disciple (disambig).

Re your note: Hey. I noticed that you were helping get links .... the Disciple (Christianity) page might get moved to Disciple and the disambig page stay where it is. SnowFire 04:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Okey-dokey. Thanks for the warning. I had not noticed the possible plans to change things around. I think I will just drop this particular disambiguation project for the time being. --Sean Lotz 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Magic.

Wow I finally found out how to message you this is pretty cool. Anyways yes I also agree that starcitygames belongs on MTG. But the MTGO III link that I put on there had a lot more screenshots/video that WOTC had previously provided. So what is your MTGO screen name so we can chat sometime? (Blackangel63, moved by me from User talk:Snowfire)

I actually took a look at the article. It's decent, but Wikipedia prefers primary sources, generally. If you wanted to use it to cite a fact about MTGO version 3, that'd be more acceptable. And once again, I'll pass on offering up my MTGO screenname, thanks. SnowFire 00:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks for showing me the ropes and i'll be more careful for now on.

Why did you get mtgotraders.com blacklisted? They provide a lot of good articles and WOTC even links to them in many of their articles yet you think that wikipedia shouldn't?

I've never seen WotC link to mtgotraders, actually. That said, the reason mtgotraders got blacklisted was due to extremely disruptive edit patterns. BlackAngel started talking above after I'd already submitted the blacklist request. I'd have no problem with aiding your request for a de-blacklist, if the other editors agree. SnowFire 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well i'm the owner of mtgotraders.com and I think I might know who blackangel is. I'm sorry for what he did and as for WOTC linking here is one from this week: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/fk13. I posted a request to be unblacklisted. Could you please help me out with this situation? I would greatly appreciate it.

Okay. No guarantees, though. I posted something at Talk:Magic: The Gathering on the issue. We'll see if there's enough support. SnowFire 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My bot

Template subsututions See this and the links within this discusion. does that take care of it? Betacommand 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Disciple (Christianity)

I have recently done considerable modification to this article, but I have tried hard to maintain your structure and intent. I hope you can appreciate the direction in which I have tried to modify the article. If not, perhaps we can discuss before any further changes or revertings. Thanks.

[edit] Wow and the Wolof language

You did the right thing. I disagree with the linguists on this one, but the authority behind the Wolof origin is weak at best, even if the evidence arguably isn't. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fraulein

An anonymous user, 201.79.37.127 (talk • contribs), has erroneously posted a message to my user page, apparently thinking that I was you. Ironically, he seems to think that you should do more research before making edits. – ClockworkSoul 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fraulein: Ok Snow Fire, this is the bottom line. I reverted the article to the March, 2005 version. At least this version mentions the reality that certain elderly and socially conservative speakers still use the term. It still however conforms to your slanted views on the subject, so all is well.

Ok, I will accept that revison....at least for the time being.

[edit] Modular Integrated Systems Strategy

Go ahead. I don't give a crap about it. The article was created as a garbage collection move on Man In Space Soonest. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraulein

Here we go again.... I should have known you would persist in this...As a "vandal fighter" I would think that you would be aware of the 3 revert rule...

It's not three reverts forever. It's three per day- something which you have broken, not me! SnowFire 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hardly.

[edit] Your warnings

Your slave-work in support Wikipedia by reverting vandalism by an international traveller such as me is futile. Perhaps I can visit your town and use a wifi hotspot in your neighborhood next. Maybe your neighboor has an unsecured wireless router.

[edit] September 29

Thanks! I was just about to do that myself, with this checkin message:

"revert vandalism blanking", excuse me? Revert *1980 - Dallas Green, Canadian Musician -- That article is for a baseball exec born in 1934. Don't reverse this again.

But you beat me to it! -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

3RR explicitly does not apply to reverting vandalism -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India Students Assocoation

I am dissapointed to see ISA article deleted. This would have been useful to new students. I hope the decision will be revoked. Please talk to me about this. ~rAGU

Bravo. People nicely spoke about it and had fun! (complete with email and phone..blah blah ). I can not spare my energy medling with this. ~rAGU

[edit] Move at Heroes III

Hi. You were the one who closed down the debate at Heroes of Might and Magic III rather than resubmit it for more votes (what I was expecting to happen). I disagree with this decision, and was wondering if there would be a problem with reopening the debate and resubmitting Heroes III to Requested Moves.

See, this article was at the longer title for most of its life. Occasionally Frecklefoot has moved it to Heroes III (like recently), and myself and at least two other people who have been against such a move. Those two other people who have argued against moving the article, though, simply haven't logged on (at least according to their contributions) since then. There was already a debate above the main one on the talk page where Frecklefoot was basically being outvoted, in case you didn't notice. My point is that I can see why such a debate might be closed due to lack of interest if there was a "status quo" to return to and not enough impetus to make a move (the 60/40 rule and all). The problem is that this status quo was my proposed move- I was trying to reset Frecklefoot's recent change. The page title was in contention for some time, so there basically was no impartial status quo.

The 60/40 rule in this case creates a perverse incentive to not submit a move request to RM and to move-war instead. You have effectively punished me for "doing the right thing" and submitting the request to RM, as I feel that Frecklefoot should have submitted what he knew to be a contentious move to RM first. Suppose that I had uniltarally moved it back, and then FF had been the one to make the request to RM, and that the vote was 1-1 again. Would you have "kept" it at the longer title? That would be every bit as flawed a process, because whoever submits it to RM for actual debate loses. (Edit: For an example of a admin who apparently agrees this can be a problem, see Talk:Arabic numerals#Result- despite 56% in favor of a "keep," since it was only a keep after someone had moved the page and had it contested, he in effect decided 60% was required to "keep" the page, since it was really a move that should have gone to RM.)

Yes, it sucks when practically no one is responding, but when the vote is 1-1, and there is no "neutral" page to simply remain at, I don't think that the request can be closed, and should be relisted for more votes. SnowFire 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now, all pages in that series (Heroes of Might and Magic) that are the base game (not an expansion pack) do not use the subtitle in the article title, except Heroes of Might and Magic II: The Succession Wars. Since no one really objects to the short title as long as everything is consistent and a few people would prefer the shorter title (including me), I think it should be moved to the shorter title, and Heroes of Might and Magic II: The Succession Wars should be moved too to complete the series. What do you think? —Mets501 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well... as I stated at the talk page, no, I don't agree. Obviously it's hardly a critical issue, but I for one would prefer the subtitle to be there, as it is on other games. As I pointed out several times at the talk page, Heroes IV and Heroes V don't actually have an official subtitle, so they're already at their complete name. If the debate had decicively closed in favor of "no subtitle," then maybe I might agree, but I still believe that you closed the debate early and we haven't finished figuring out where Heroes III should go yet.
As a style-and-form thing, why didn't you say what you just said on my talk page over at the RM page? It would have added to the debate and we might have gotten more responses, and I could have responded to it before the debate closed. I still disagree with you closing it, at least without more explanation- if you had said AfD style that "I agree with Frecklefoot hahaha we win," that would be better, but if you have an opinion on an issue and it isn't resolved yet, just go ahead and post your thoughts. Somebody else can close the debate.
Anyway. As for consistency and Heroes II, I think this should be taken up over at the CVG Project page or the like for input or the possible creation of guidelines on when subtitles should be used, because there needs to be more input and things are currently inconsistent everywhere. A quick random check shows that both styles are used- Warcraft II (no Tides of Darkness), Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen (subtitle used), and Xenosaga Episode II: Jenseits von Gut und Böse (both subtitles used). SnowFire 01:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, perhaps I was too quick in closing the debate. I think that a local debate there, however, means nothing, so I'm opening up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Feel free to contribute in a few minutes after I've created it :-). —Mets501 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (fantasy)

Because you have made comments on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page, I thought you might be interested to know of a Request for Comments: Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment Goldfritha 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One more time!
I hope.
You may find the "Proposal for resolution of concerns" worth chipping in on. Same article. (Glad you could chip in on the last proposal.) Goldfritha 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If wishes were horses. . .
The page was merged to Magicians in fantasy. And then redirected, not to Magicians in fantasy, but to Wizard.
I thought you might be interested to know of a second Request for Comments on the page: Talk:Wizard (fantasy)#Request for comment 2 Goldfritha 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karen

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my changes to Karen. While I certainly neglected to link to Karen (name), and perhaps one could argue that the two topics formerly redlinked should still be, I am a little surprised to see all the formatting eliminated and I am not clear on what WP:MOSDP asks for differently from my edit. It seems to me, unless I'm missing something, that my edits were much closer to the MoS than the current page. I guess I might have expected to see the topics re-redlinked, or something along those lines, but not an entire reversion. I don't mean to come on too strong, but I am very interested to hear the rationale. ENeville 03:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magician

What do you think of the first two paragraphs of Magician, specifically the reference to Alister Crowley and "rational" magic? Dreadlocke ☥ 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Arete

The reason I bolded "Arête" and put it as a new main entry was to try and distinguish it from all the meanings related to the Greek word "Arete", spelt without the circumflex. The way it's organised at the moment, it looks as if "Arête" is one of the meanings of said Greek word, notwithstanding the bit in brackets that says that it's etymologically unrelated. I'll admit my solution wasn't very elegant; can you think of a better way to distinguish the distinct senses (if indeed it's desireable that they should be distinguished)? --Blisco 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance

Hi Snow Fire,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reversion of my edits of the Resistance page. The following is some select comments of yours and my responses:

  • "In descriptions, I strongly prefer to use proper English. By this I mean that you should be able to make a complete sentence stringing the headers and entry together"
    • I removed a's and an's because I have been taught that it is not proper English to begin a jot note with these determiners. I understand your reasoning behind adding them and, as they seem to be common on WP:MOSDAB, I will leave them there in the future.
  • "You avoided indenting any items. I cannot see why as this often makes something much easier to read, and is a very common practice on disambig pages. This is doubly true when something is a subset of another meaning."
    • The reason it seemed that I avoided indenting items is not because I oppose indenting, but because I believe that most entries which are subsets of others should not be listed on a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages should be as short as possible in order to limit the time required for a user to find the article they are searching for.
  • "it is entirely possible for articles without the magic word to be valid disambig topics"
    • WP:MOSDAB states that "a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not." Wind resistance is the appropriate entry on the Resistance disambiguation page, not Drag (physics).
  • "bands or people are not typically italicized"
    • Bands should always be italicized. People should not. It does not make sense to unitalicize V, Voyager, and Battlestar Galactica in the links but not in the descriptions. They should always be italicised. See italic type for when to use italics.

Also, in response to your edits:

  1. Friction is an example of resistance, but is never referred to as resistance. Someone looking for the Friction page would not type Resistance in searching for it. It may be something to have in a "See also" section, but not as a proper entry.
  2. If you feel strongly that conductivity should be mentioned on the page, its disambiguation page should be listed in the "See also" section as well. Hydraulic conductivity is not called hydraulic resistance, nor is thermal conductivity the same as thermal resistance.
  3. Disease resistance in fruit and vegetables deserves a description. If immune system is an important entry to have on this disambiguation page, it should be switched to a link to a redirect page called Disease resistance as you have suggested. This is in accordance with the quote from WP:MOSDAB above.
  4. "politics and the military" is not a field unto itself. Only the third entry in that section is political, and the other three are military. These are two separate fields. Also, adding the word the before military suggests that there is only one military, but the entries refer to more than one.
  5. In retrospect, I agree with your assessment that the "physics" section should go first as the most common usages of the word resistance are in that field.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I will not generally revert your edits. You were kind enough to explain your reasoning and also to leave the new entries I added in place. The only edit you made that I feel strongly must be reverted is the removal of the italics on V, Voyager, and Battlestar Galactica, which I will revert. I'll leave the rest up to your judgement.

Neelix 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - Out of curiosity, how did you come up with the name "SnowFire"? I like the image it conjures.

--

Hi Snow Fire,

I must apologize for the lateness of my reply. Although I had been under the impression that band names should be italicized, it seems that no such guideline exists on Wikipedia and I have therefore stopped italicizing them. Thank you for pointing this out. I also appreciate you starting the discussion on Manual of Style (titles) about parenthetical disambiguators. Hopefully some guideline will be implemented for italics in this case. Until that happens, I will continue to italicize where it would be otherwise appropriate. As to your explanations of the "politics and the military" issue, I understand your reasoning, but I still would not format the section that way. As I have stated before, however, I will leave that up to your judgement. It has been good discussing this with you and clarifying how to properly format disambiguation pages. I hope to run into you again in the future.

Neelix 00:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger and redirect

Hi Snowfire, just to let you know your opinion would be valued in both the merge proposal for Magicians in fantasy to Magician and the discussion on whether to delete or redirect the now-defunct Wizard (fantasy) article. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD Self-ref

Honestly, I cannot recall the circumstances which prompted me to do what you mentioned, although I do find it in the edit summary. I am forced to assume that the most likely thing that happened was that I screwed up. If that is the case, you have my sincerest apologies, and my thanks for the correction. Badbilltucker 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: ==Removal of TOCright.== on User talk:100110100

You have directed me to where it DOES NOT mention the arguments you have put forth. It says that it CAN be used, NOT MUST BE USED; also, this is an encyclopedia, it is not possible to deemed a certain TOC to be, really, arbitrarily, to long, so we should really not use it at all. I will try from now on to remeber to explain why I will take out TOCright.100110100 11:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (fantasy) redirect

I was wondering if you had an opinion on whether the Wizard (fantasy) redirect should point to Magicians in fantasy or the Wizard disambiguation page. I'd like to get that resolved (for some bizarre reason..;). So far we have two editors for Magicians in fantasy and one for the dab page. We've been discussing it on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/n/o/User_talk%7ESnowFire_38c7.html"