User talk:Armedblowfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puffy is a yellow porcupinefish, usually depicted as being fully puffed up.


If you do not like these colours, go here to see the page with normal colours.


Feel free to leave me a message. Disclaimers: Unsigned comments may have Template:Unsigned2 appended. Any edit containing personal information about me (real or made-up) will probably simply be removed.

For some reason, I usually reply to messages left on my talk page here. While it is possible I may do otherwise, you should usually expect a response here. (Here being my talk page, not this talk page header.)

Archives

Contents


[edit] User talk:Essjay

I would consider those edits vandalism, since WP:VAND includes "Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages". Prodego talk 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not, because when compared to the vandalism that Essjay chose to keep already, my post is nothing more then a harmless joke. Honestly... Coolgamer 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if Essjay would. Essjay seems to be able to handle a lot, so it might be better to let him decide what he wants to remove from his talk page, as the note on the top suggests. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"Thanks, Prodego, but Essjay's talk page says, "Do not, under any circumstances, remove posts from this page without my permission. Non-vandalism posts, regardless of [...]" at the top)" thats great that is says that but he doesn't set wiki policy and pages are not a breeding ground for vandalism, social networks etc. I don't know whats going on personally with that page and other editors but when one editor deleted others stuff to put his up. I called him on it. Seeing that is some issue with him I am washing my hands of it since I don't know the issue. But users don't set policy like that. They can mention to leave stuff, but if its against policy vandlism its getting taken out. If they like it or not. Have a good night and thanks for your time. See you around wiki.--Xiahou 01:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the deletion was an accident that occured when I reverted an edit that had deleted my comments. Don't assume bad faith. Coolgamer 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, Coolgamer. In the future, consider learning how to deal with edit conflicts.  : ) ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Xiahou, I guess I am somewhat confused about your concern. The edit summary you quoted was one that added back removed material, which I guess someone considered overly rude. I am unsure how that is related to Coolgamer's edit conflict. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
somehow my washed hands are getting dirty. Ok. I am on RC patrol I see a user talk page with a large minus which unless its the user is either vandalism or taking care of. I open the page as Prodego fixes it with comments about removing others stuff to put yours in. I hit refresh a bit later and its back with comments. I rv back to Prodegos making the comments of in essence that you may be adding yours back but in the process are removing others. Thats it. Then I see you later comment/summary saying Essjay said to leave anything (btw since Ive read what he says and actually I did what he asked by rv'ing a deletion) anyway, I commented on that above stating even if a user says leave it (he says nonvandalism in his statment by the way) that vandalism will be taken out regardless of what they ask, yada yada yada (its all above this). Can I wash my hands of this again please :-) --Xiahou 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did anything wrong.  : ) But I understand better now, so thanks! You are hereby purified with rosewater, or whatever you would like to be purified with. Not that you need to be purified, but if it makes you feel better, then do so. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thank you ever so much :-) --Xiahou 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. : ) ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
yes its me again. Holy cripes. I found out what the deal was with Essjay's page by sheer luck just wandering doing RC - [[1]] I can see how some would have issue with this. --Xiahou 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Fortunately, Essjay seems to be handling it well.  : ) ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Appreciate the heads up. Martial Law 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some cases in which spam is used to find a computer to use to turn it into a spam center to send spam, even use it to hide pornographic material, other incriminating evidence. Martial Law 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Architecture

Hello and welcome to the wikiproject - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Architecture Bulletin   v • d • e 
Announcements - please add your Project announcements   v • d • e 
  1. Over 300 edits in March transformed the Castle article in a successful Collaboration of the Month, with contributions from dozens of editors.
  2. A new stub cat has been created for architectural styles - {{arch-style-stub}}
  3. Congratulations to User:Dineshkannambadi and others for raising Hoysala architecture to Featured status.
  4. User:Supergolden becomes our 50th participant. Welcome.
  5. Add nominations and comment on Selected Article and Selected Picture candidates to be featured on the Architecture Portal over the next few months
  6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles has been created as daughter of architecture and military history. Details on the page if you're interested in signing up.
  7. The Assessment department has opened its doors. You can help with assessment - please sign up and see page for details.
New article announcements - add new architecture article to list


Archives

This month's collaboration is Castle.

Castle, this month's collaboration
Featured article candidates
Compass and straightedge constructions
Feature picture candidates
Air Force Memorial - Maison Kammerzell - Cleveland Tower
Articles at Peer Review
Gunston Hall - Aga Khan Award for Architecture - Chicago Spire - Japanese castle - Joseph F. Glidden House
New participants (add me)
TrentonGB - Supergolden - User talk:Armedblowfish
This template will be updated monthly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.

[edit] Second Severn Crossing image

Hi, Armedblowfish. Thanks for supporting my featured picture nomination and for taking the time to produce an edit. I'd just like to point out a couple of things which you may not be aware of:

You've linked to the wrong image on the FP nomination - you linked to my version again, instead of your edit. Easily done, I've fixed it now.

Your edit was a good idea but in practice it hasn't come off very well - unfortunately by increasing the contrast you've lost a lot of the detail in the clouds and along the top of the bridge in the brightest areas; this is known as 'blowing out' the highlights and happens when the contrast increase leads very pale parts of the image to become completely white. To see what I mean, take a look at the brightest area of the two images side-by-side. I worked very hard to maintain the detail while getting as much contrast into the image as I could, which is one reason for the slight difference in colour between my original upload and the alternative with the far left of the bridge; I obviously didn't apply quite the same combination of tweaks the second time around (I tried, but I couldn't get it exactly the same). Unfortunately contrast vs. detail is a tradeoff that it's difficult to find a way around, and on FPC people have a hawk-eye for blown highlights and will shoot down with great enthusiasm any nominations that suffer them. Also, by re-saving the image as a JPEG after editing, you've introduced a lot of noise and artifacts (e.g. in the sky on the far right); that can only really be avoided by working from the original (uncompressed) file or by re-saving at a very high quality level.

I'm not quite sure what you mean in your additions to the image description page about digital cameras imitating aperture and shutter speed; this isn't really correct. The aperture and shutter speed are mechanical aspects of the working of the camera, and they're essentially the same in film and digital cameras; that's why you can fit a digital camera back to a film camera. Sensitivity is effectively imitated by digital image sensors, so you're right about that part. Brightness is a function of the shutter speed but contrast is influenced more by the film or sensor and by processing.

I hope that makes sense and doesn't come across as too condescending; I have no problem with people editing my images and I'm the first to accept that they're never perfect. Happy editing, --YFB ¿ 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistakes on the nomination page, I guess I am getting tired. Thanks for correcting them! : )
I know the modifications caused some detail loss, due to the limited colour range of digitally-stored pictures. I was trying to address some of the concerns expressed in the nomination. If you took the picture with a film camera, it would work better in a darkroom. Negatives are basically analogue and store a wide range of colours, so when you adjust brightness and contrast, you can gain details while you lose others. I am sorry for the JPEG problems, I am not as good at using digital photo manipulations tools as the ones in the darkroom. : )
The main point of the comments on the image page were to prove that contrast and brightness are manipulations that any picture goes through, and thus are not a problem per Wikipedia:Attribution#Original_images. However, shutter speed, aperture and film speed were originally concepts for film cameras. In a film camera, the light that hits the film causes the chemicals to react. The more light the film receives, the more it reacts, depending on the ISO of the film. As far as I know, chemical reactions do not occur in digital cameras, there are just a bunch of circuits that decide what colour to make all the little pixels based on algorithms that imitate those functions. However, I have only used very low-end digital cameras, so I am sure you know more about the high-end ones than I do.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No need for all the apologies - I'm not complaining, just making some observations :-)
I agree that the photo is dark, but even in a darkroom I don't think you'd be able to get much more detail out of this than is there already, without making the image look washed out and/or very unnatural. That's a by-product of shooting into the sun and was something I did deliberately, to capture an atmospheric scene. Even with a film camera you'd get a dark image in these circumstances.
While I admire your respect for the original images policy, in my fairly long experience at FPC I've never seen any complaints about adjustments to contrast, brightness, levels, colour balance etc. (and within reason, even tweaks to things like shadow/highlight, which make rather more radical changes). I think consensus is overwhelmingly in support of improvements like these, accepting that raw images straight out of the camera (or off the negative) are rarely as good as they could be, and playing with the data that's already present in the image is fine so long as it doesn't substantively change the encyclopaedic representation of the subject. AFAIK, the original images policy is intended more to prohibit factual changes to the image, such as cloning out significant parts or manipulating locations or text. That's particularly the case where the changes promote a particular POV. Conversely, adjusting the contrast etc. has no bearing on the factual content of the image and is perfectly acceptable. So it's not necessary to give a full rationale for changes like these, although it's always useful to note briefly what changes were made in the edit.
Regarding shutter speed, aperture and film sensitivity, obviously all three were originally used in film cameras, but shutter speed and aperture are still physically employed in the process of taking a digital photo. A digital camera is essentially just a film camera where the film is replaced by an electronic sensor. The shutter still physically opens and closes for a set period of time and the aperture still represents the physical size of the opening in the diaphragm. The only part of the process which is fundamentally different is the ISO rating system, as obviously you can't change the digital sensor in the same way as you change film sensitivities. I'm not entirely sure how this is done but basically the digital sensor can have its sensitivity adjusted through the camera software to emulate this effect. The same tradeoffs apply for digital as for film cameras - on film, higher ISO gets you more grain; on digital, higher 'pseudo-ISO' tends to result in more image noise.
Anyway, a lot of that is probably covered somewhere among our articles on digital camera etc., but I hope it clears up what I was on about :-)
All the best, --YFB ¿ 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I shall probably talk to you if I am ever interested in investing in a high-quality digital camera. The adjusted image isn't that great, but perhaps the demonstration will help people better appreciate the original silhouette. You actually can do a lot in the darkroom, although perhaps more in black-and-white than in colour. It would be hard, if not impossible, to get detail in both the lighter and darker areas, but you would have more choice. That is, if you blew out the lighter colours, you would get more detail in the darker colours at the same time. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *rawr*

Hey you. LTNT. How is everything? —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-03-12 02:46Z

Good!  : ) Note: I just sent you a more honest response by email. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your kind words

Thank you, AB, for those kind words. At least I know that one person read the proposal without immediately finding fault with it. then again, I remember from my RfA that you take the time to think tyhings over carefully and make well-reasoned decisions, so I should not be surprised at this either image:smile.png. Thank you, again. -- Avi 04:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

: ) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Been on Case

Been on a UFO case. So far, it appears that the UFO incident in AR may be classed as "Unknown". The Arkansans believe the incident to be of a religious nature, few say it was aliens, few say it was some kind of military training. My primary witness says it may either be military training or a hoax. Martial Law 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job! You must have done a lot of research to find that many points of view on the matter. I hope you add it to the relevant article.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Found errant link...

Someone placed a link in the wrong place in the Phoenix Lights article. I found the error and corrected it, and WHO placed the errant link. On top of that, the link may be suspect according to WP protocol. Info is on my talk page. Martial Law 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help possible?

Hey Armed, I noticed that you said that you feel depressed in the latest comment on your user page - anything I can do to help? Jsw663 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is completely not wiki-related. Thanks for the thought!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CEM FAQ

I really appreciate the time you've been taking to improve the community enforceable mediation proposal. Yet it would be more helpful to post questions to the FAQ talk page before changing the FAQ. Some of the changes you implemented would confuse a reader. For instance, this alteration made the implication that WP:AGF would restrict mediators from closing a case. Actually the proposal specifically states the opposite. From Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation#Application, Mediators are not required to explain their reasons for rejecting a case: assume good faith has already degraded by the time disputants consider this solution, so in order to avoid worsening a situation the mediator who rejects a potential case or withdraws from a case in progress is not expected to elaborate. DurovaCharge! 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the state of being a "disruptive troll" could be a subjective matter. So, "what if the person is a disruptive troll?" makes the possibly false assumption that everyone would agree that the person is indeed a disruptive troll. The mediator need not state his or her reason for not taking the case or closing it, however, a mediator who agrees that the person is a disruptive troll would not be able to proceed neutrally. Saying that the mediator will simply not open or close the case if a person is a disruptive troll could lead to ugly arguments about whether someone is or is not a disruptive troll. ("Why don't you close the case? He's a disruptive troll!" "No, I'm not!" "Yes you are!" ... If the mediator does not personally close the mediation, the mediator could be seen as taking the positive stance that the person is not, in fact, a disruptive troll, thereby taking sides.) However, a mediator can say, "I do not think I can handle this neutrally," without passing judgement on anyone. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. So an outside party makes an open challenge to me to close an ongoing case. In that specific example I'd ask for evidence, also requesting that they refactor the objection into less inflammatory terms. Your scenario implies the thread had already degenerated before I read it and intervened. So I'd also point out the proof by assertion logical fallacy and advise the participant that there's need to respond to an unsupported allegation. If meaningful evidence followed I'd research the matter myself and also ask the participant for that person's side of the story. Whether or not I close the case, my decision would focus on the key question of whether CEM is the appropriate venue. There can be many reasons why CEM might be inappropriate and I'd discourage the bickering sides from speculation. DurovaCharge!
I find it much easier to simply ask myself if I can be neutral or not than go through the whole trouble of making a judgement, which would leave me non-neutral once I have made it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we have different understandings of neutrality. I can remain neutral about the merits of a dispute while I assess whether one or both editors may be gaming the system or might otherwise be unsuitable for a particular dispute resolution venue. DurovaCharge! 04:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we do. You could suggest such people come over to MedCom.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the mediation on Falun Gong

Do we really need to move the mediation to another site? I mean in that case we loose the one place "My watchlist" feature which at least I find very useful and otherwise at some point there might be things which I care about changed or questions which I don't see.

Normally I think it would be quite enough if we start a few new pages to build drafts and to discuss. Please let me know what you think. --HappyInGeneral 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Just thought I'd chip in here as well. What are the advantages of this approach? I understand that one thing is that people who are not invited/allowed will not be able to read the mediation... basically not be able to read what we are writing about how to edit the articles. Am I correct? Can you please explain further why you think this is a good idea, what it means for the project, what the pros and cons are, etc.? I take it that you are just proposing the idea at this stage. I guess I don't fully understand what this means and why it is better. Can you please help on this? Is your message to be understood as a solicitation for support/agreement from the involved parties?--Asdfg12345 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pros - It will help keep conversations "safe", and hopefully make it slightly easier to reach a consensus. Also see my comment here.
Cons - Getting all interested parties over there, things won't show up on your Wikipedia watchlists, showing consensus over here on Wikipedia (when we reach it), GFDL complexities, a few technical issues. Hopefully things that can be worked out. : )
I mean to invite everyone interested, so everyone should be able to participate, so long as they are aware of where the mediation would be occurring. Sorry for the brief response. Hopefully I can answer your question more fully later.
Thanks for considering it,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a simple formulation

Thanks for pointing me to WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. I'm having a hard time, though, applying it to the "greatest of all time" issue in such a way that it could be easily understood even by dissenting users as a policy-based argument to write like "Author X has called Y the greatest Z of all time". The problem lies with the "is widely considered". I once had a dispute over this with a user who provided a (somewhat reliable) weblink where a sports journalists wrote about one tennis player (Pete Sampras, I believe it was) that he was widely/generally being considered to be the best of all time. So that user went on to just reference the assertion with that source, claiming that the source said exactly what the article says. It was a pain convincing him to make mention of the author of that claim in the article text. I just wished little disputes like that were easier and faster to resolve, maybe through use of a constantly updated precedent or examples page for each policy. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it helps. Unfortunately, WP:NPOV tends to be easier in theory than in practice. You could try playing around with the wording. Some people like various forms of indirect statements or quotes better than others. However, you might also want to take a look at WP:WTA. "Said" is good, "claim" is often bad. There's also "according to": neutral, but some think it disrupts sentence flow. There are also direct quotes. "Source X said, 'Y'." (Just be careful about fair use.)
If it's a poll, it might not be so important to mention the source of the poll in-text, as long as it's a relatively trusted group. However, it probably is important to mention important statics instead: the number of people polled, basic methodology, sample group, etc.
Good luck! : )
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, your input has been very helpful. One last plea, whenever you have the time, could you drop me a note as to this? Am I anywhere near correct application of policy? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your application looks fine to me.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATT, RS and NPOV

I agree with the concept, but given the dominance of certain individuals in the maintenance I think that it'd be likely to end up migrating towards absolutism. I reviewed the ATT discussion earlier and I'm considering how best to articulate my position. Unfortunately I think more people are comfortable with absolutism than living with ambiguity :(

Too many Doctorate fetishists involved, I'm not convinced that the real world impinges often ;)

ALR 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion!  : ) I am not sure how you could turn undue weight into an on/off issue, though. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz] 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

No offense intended, but please check into WP:REFACTOR and watch edit summaries. The removal of the two completely moot (and by that point confusing) "noise" passages at the ATT talk page's pre-poll helps other, later readers. They were removed because the points they were in relation to were themselves refactored out of existence by others, making the commentary about the pre-fix issues not only mooted but likely to confuse later readers who didn't understand immediately that the changes had already been made. I believe the removals to have been an improvement, and I hope you'll re-revert your revert of them. If anyone whose notes were refactored away had objections (which were specifically solicited), I'm sure they would have done so very strongly (Jossi in particular is quite irritated with me on other points, and would not hesitate to object). All that said, if you understand the refactor rationale and genuinely disagree with it, I won't argue against that at all, as my edit summaries with regard to the refactors said.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was easier to notice the material was gone and find it again then find the exact diffs where it was removed. Based on discussion I've had on WT:REFACTOR, refactoring seems contentious even in the extreme case of removing personal attacks. One compromise, however, is to write a brief message saying that material was removed and provide a link in the edit history for the comments. Since removal is usually only done for personal attacks, I would reccomend writing notes that make it clear that this was not done for WP:RPA reasons. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please ...

ABF, please stop the disruption. It has reached the stage where admin action might be needed, because it really has gone too far. Please, please just let the poll continue. We need to know what the community thinks. I also hate the fact that we're having a poll, believe me, but there's nothing we can do about it, so let's just get on with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am not trying to express an opinion about whether or not the poll should continue. I just think people should know it is disputed, so that if someone reverts it back to an unopened state again, people won't be confused about why their opinions mysteriously disappeared. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But it isn't disputed. It was just one person so far as I can tell. It's open, people are voting, so please just let it continue. No one's vote is going to disappear. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Just one person? Okay, I guess I am worrying too much. Thinking of England sounds good.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 05:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Pmanderson and I have also objected to this, among others. We didn't engage in physically trying to stop it but I came close to reverting one of the reverted reverts... that was trying to stop it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh. : / Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 05:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favour

Sorry, I misread you as wanting to replace "support" with "favor". Bzzzt... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Glad we cleared that up!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 06:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATT poll

My !vote is not broad opposition to ATT, but opposes this merger to its present text. I have classified your vote in the same category; please correct if I am wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I decided my vote was more of an opposish compromise than supporting some merger but a different one, and have moved my vote accordingly. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ooops, sorry about the whitespace :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. : ) I'll get rid of it when I'm done trying to restore original/chronological order and adding refactoring notices about the original placement of the votes. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about the one refactoring notice of yours that I removed. Pmanderson (Septentrionalis) was the very first poster to the Neutral/qualified/compromise section; whatever sections (s)he tried to create and move votes to (his/her own included), Pmanderson's vote is actually right now precisely where it was when first posted, and thus that particular refactor note is just "noise".  :-) The other shorter ones aren't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: All that's actually changed there since the new sections were reverted is the move of three votes with your short refactor note, and "/other" being appended to the section name, which is of no consequence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Septentrionalis clearly felt that the header was an inaccurate representation of his or her vote. In addition to explaining this in the messages he posted on people's talk pages, one of which I linked to and quoted, he also stated this in the edit summary of this revision. I feel Septentrionalis's changing of the section titles was an amendment to his or her vote, which needs to be noted in some way. That refactoring note also helps explain later refactoring notes, which otherwise come out-of-the-blue.
Actually, more than that has changed. When the reversion back to the (almost) original title occurred, a lot of the comments had been moved out of order due to the recategorising, which Marskell did not fix in his or her reversion. I carefully fixed this over multiple edits, first putting the original comments (before recategorisation) in order. Afterwards I put the ones that were added while the titles were different in chronological order, with the refactoring notes you see now. I then checked the votes that were added after the (almost) original header was restored, and deleted the whitespace I had been using to keep track of things.
Thanks for your consideration, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I wasn't trying to imply you were careless (and you were clearly even more careful than I thought); I just didn't (and kinda still don't) see the point of PMA's refactor note. But of all things to care about on WP, this is maybe #23,509.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! : ) Might not be that important, but I care about it.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate

Thank you for your message, but the situation has since been resolved via an ArbCom ruling. Elonka 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume that is a good thing.  : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/m/User_talk%7EArmedblowfish_5587.html"