User talk:Revolving Bugbear/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the first archive of my talk page, as of 23 July, 2006.

Contents 1 the Buffy Episodes 2 Buffy project 3 Image copyright problem with Image:Canossa.jpg 4 WP:Buffy 5 Canon 6 Edits to WP Buffy 7 WikiProject Buffy Checklist 8 About AFD Discussion 9 Re: Guerrilla mediation 10 Re: Tearfree's Link and the Three Reverts 11 Your VandalProof Application 12 Katholikentag 13 RFC at Democratic Underground 14 Tip of the day project update 15 Navbar 16 Welcome! 17 Welcome to VandalProof! 18 Your welcome message 19 re: Civility 20 A humourous jab at your userbox comment 21 Marienkirche 22 thank you 23 French liberal parties

[edit] the Buffy Episodes

I've been doing the edits of the Buffy episodes. Currently I'm working on season 4. I just saw your episode boxes and stubs. I'll have to go back and try to incorporate them into the episodes I've written so far. How do I add my name to your group? User:Pseudovector

[edit] Buffy project

Are we or are we not naming each episode as Name of episode (Buffy episode)? Maver1ck 08:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to. There's no official consensus on it yet, but I think we ought to and no one has disagreed. Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 16:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No italics, though

Nice idea, this project... let me know if your still interested in some extra man-power.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Canossa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Canossa.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

[edit] WP:Buffy

Thanks for the mention at Whedonesque.com! - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Was hoping it would bring some more people to the project. unfortunely so many other links got posted after, that it was only on the main page for about a day. Still hopefully it got a few people contributing, even if they don't sign up with Wp:Buff.

The merging of characters you're been doing at is great, and makes such articles are less vulnerable to people who moan about WP:FICT. Keep up the good work -- Paxomen 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon

Sure you're right but was interested to know if there is a counter or something on wiki pages?How do you know Buffyverse canonical issues had a low hit count?

Seemed to me odd that all the discussion cut from various pages about Buffyverse canonical issues went on a sub-page as opposed to Talk:Buffyverse canonical issues. If readership and reach over an audience was the issue, then how are internal links to the project sub-page available at Talk:WPB, Buffyverse chronology (canon only) and others, any better than links at the same places to the talk page that specifically deals with exactly that topic?

Anyway since a lot of it seems to be directed at me, I thought I should say a few things.

1) What I meant about WP:FICT is that it is not a consensus guideline, there is large room for debate on either side or in the middle. Many believe that Wiki is not limited in ways that paper encyclopedias and good quality articles relating to mass produced fiction should not be under increased risk from deletion, whilst others consider articles about fictional worlds as 'cruft' (or rubbish), and a waste of space. As I said above I agree with merging smaller articles, but I don't believe WP:FICT should be misused as an excuse for deletion what some people might view as 'cruft' even if it lives up to wikipedian standards.

2) I agree that the comics and novels are not canon, however it is quite misleading to say they are not associated with Whedon. Buffyverse canonical issues#Joss Whedon's participation in novels and comics), I would assume Whedon is not interested in emphasising or even adequately explaining his involvement in the non-cannon, because he does not have the time to properly oversee them or control their quality.

3) I understand that all wiki work is potentially deleted.. but I was raising concerns because only two users were repeatedly deleting/changing chunks of my contributions simply on the basis of earlier 'WikiProject Buffy' words which said something like 'separate then remove non-cannon material', they would do it without any discussion, and even when it seemed the vast majority of people commenting on various Buffyverse pages were suggesting that non-cannon material would be acceptable when clearly sourced. I was trying to open up discussion on the matter else my work on books/comics was pointless.

4) When I mentioned Catholic views on abortion and birth control or the Israel-Palestine... I was giving examples of how a dominant agenda could weaken an alternative viewpoint if it were given the chance, these were of course extreme examples and maybe I was mistaken in using such examples to explain this, but in no way was I comparing the brutal situations in the middle-east to Buffy, I was talking about agendas and how one can overpower alternative points of view, I was not talking about specifics of a tragic conflict.

5) It wasn't notability that was getting my work washed aside, it was a handful of words that were on WikiProject:Buffy page that said something like This project is for objective canon only and further down the page, separate non-canon information and remove it . The users were following exactly what it had said on that page.

6) Unlike cannon material, non-cannon material is not covered even remotely comprehensively anywhere on the web, so why not build a full Buffyverse on WP.

Anyway, the earlier problems I had are no longer the case, I am gradually improving the books and comic articles now by using info-boxes, and completing the articles for the last 10 Buffy graphics, and once I have checked over all the grammar as well, I believe it will be completed in the next few months, then I will be able to help build on the Angel episode stumps.

Thanks -- Paxomen 11:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for addressing my words and stuff, I'll be more careful before using silly examples on wiki. Lataness -- Paxomen 11:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to WP Buffy

Hi, I thought I'd give you a heads-up as I moved your verb-tense piece to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/General from Project:talk. I should also admit I felt guilty after reading your note. Xiner 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Buffy Checklist

Hiya, just letting people who regularly work on Buffyverse articles know there is now a checklist for non-episode articles in place to highlight articles needing work on, and articles coming into completion. It is available at the main project page, since this is where the 'WikiProject Buffy template' on the discussion page of all Buffyverse pages directs people, and as such may directs non-members to a checklist and might encourage them to contribute where required:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy#Checklist

It mainly discludes episode articles since they are dealt with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Thanks -- AnGeL X 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About AFD Discussion

^{23 June 2006 16:12} Ste4k wrote: Hi! Just letting you know that I only intend to discuss the facts about that article. I hope I didn't rub you the wrong way. The reason those two terms are inappropriate, besides being unprofessional, is that you are more than likely under a mistaken impression about my gender. :) Good luck with your projects!

^{24 June 2006 12:32} Ste4k wrote: Thanks so much for that welcome Che, you say that you've been around awhile, and I certainly hope to lean my ear your way on more than one occassion. I'll let you in on a little secret since you shared so much with me. It was because you were the first person to respond to that AfD and because that it was my very first one that I would have have gone down to the mat tooth and nail with you even though I couldn't care less about the article :) It was actually the first opportunity here to check what I had learned against other points of view. It was dead a long time ago (so I kicked a dead horse, lol) but the comments are important to me because they will be used again in the future. I think what might be nice, maybe it even exists, would be for these sorts of debates to go on without an article in the middle. I mean to say informal debate, but even then to set some sort of standards. Not standards that would be set in stone, but always a way to challenge them. I am concerned though about some of the articles that I have seen here. I want you to know right up front that it doesn't matter to me that she makes her bread that way, but it was an article I found during cleanup. There is a lot more underneath that article too, i.e. I doubt we will see the last of that group. And after some investigation into the matter, it is not the anons that people should be worrying about so much, but those that would steal the bandwidth for their own profit. I am very objective but very protective. We all want to make a good encyclopedia, but there are others who take advantage of the big loopholes. I'd like to know how you feel about those types of matters if you wouldn't mind. No hurry, but stay in touch, I'll be floating around learning new things. If you want, we can keep this here, or over at my place is fine too. I'll put this page on watch and you decide. Thanks! :)

^{24 June 2006 14:18} Ste4k wrote: Hi Che! Well, let's take that article for example since it's ablaze. It's gone, but our reasoning has already been made. Every article should be given a fair trial in whatever way is current, certainly. But for an example of the kind of conversation I mean, let's play the backwards chess we've already started. For a newbie like me I thought you might have thought, like you said, that it was the incorrect reason. But also the topic matter of that article, in my opinion, would probably get an undue amount of prejuidical treatment on face value without checking into the facts. I didn't select it, of course, but these were my thoughts before bringing the matter up. And I actually did do that Google search back to the 980 or so and on that list were some fairly interesting addresses that were all alike. I checked into them and through some address matching found quite a few articles on this particular P.O. Box. I did a reverse from Nikki's page, and found another friend, Princess_Blueyez. And if you run the domain names through the registrar you will find they are owned by the same group. Now that may sound a little prejudicial, and maybe you can straighten me out here if I'm leaning too far, but that isn't the only group that I found. This other particular group, if checked out closely, appears to be trying to create their own notariety on the pedia (thx for the new slav). Don't get me wrong here, I can do all the digging of facts for myself. And if incorrect I will step aside and let things be, no problem with that. But I was actually treated yesterday to a first hand witness of those holes. Being a newbie, I was under the impression that an article had five days to be discussed, but low (snake low) and behold when I went back to comment, the matter was done and closed. What I would like to ask you, though, is if my arguments are sound, in your opinion, about Nikki. Just like yourself, I haven't any foul play against whatever anyone want to write, per reality, but there are some more sinister groups who would trade the verifiability of the pedia for gold in their pocket, imho. Tell me, is it wrong for me to feel that way about groups like these? Be honest, please, I am newbie you know. :) Thanks!
^{24 June 2006 14:53} Ste4k wrote: Thanks again, Che, and I appreciate your honest opinion. I don't to be a zealot, and I do want to float around, but the unfairness of some things matter to me. I couldn't care less about the content, and, well, at least Nikki had nicer clothes. I was told that it was extremely frowned upon. At least you were honest and mentioned it would be impossible. But I really can't understand why. I do understand that sure, they will just keep popping back up, and you are absolutely correct about pulling weeds. That's where the trees come from. :) Thanks again!
^{25 June 2006 00:25} Ste4k wrote: Hi Che! Btw, is it okay to call you "Che"? I just had a little question if you'd help me with it. Is the term "advocacy circle" how the majority of people refer to such things? Please read me seriously and remember that I really don't know. I was wondering if there was a "pedia-esque" term for such groups. Thanks! :)

[edit] Re: Guerrilla mediation

I'd like to help. I've got no 'formal experience' mediating on Wikipedia, but I consider myself a level-headed and objective person. So, I'll be around.

On a related note, the 'how this works' page at Guerrilla mediation says you have to apply to the coordinators as a mediator. Is this a mistake? It seems to contradict what it says on the main article page. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Che Nuevara: Firstly, thank you very much for volunteering your time and expertise in doing informal mediation on Wikipedia with the Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network. I am sure that you will develop the necessary experience in time, and after all actually doing something is infinitely preferable to studying it in order to learn its methodology. :) Well, basically, all you need to do is keep an eye on Category:Guerrilla mediation cases, and I might occasionally drop you a note on your talk page to assign a specific case to you. Basically, to mediate, do the following:

• Group up the issues of the conflict into understanding by identifying the common factors. Dissemble downwards into solutions from those common points of agreement after you've done so.
• Be as neutral as possible, and make sure you don't take sides or engage in a "conflict of interest".
• Communicate as effectively as possible with the parties, and try to keep them on track on the matter. Don't feel scared of refactoring any rants or long diatribes if they aren't helping the mediation.

That's really all there is to it in operational terms; the devil is, however, in the details, as you will undoubtedly learn. :)

Regarding the necessity for people to apply to the coordinators to be a mediator - no, it isn't a mistake, it is in fact intentional. Basically it means I can screen potential new mediators via a cursory analysis of their contribs to look for POV pushers who might not be a good choice as a mediator. Also, since we don't have a list of mediators (to prevent the whole system being centric around the project page) it's necessary I have a method of compiling a private list of who's a mediator, so I know who to assign cases to; that way I can also check how you're doing in the future by looking in your contribs for mediation work, and I know whenever anyone starts working at the initiative.

Thank you again for being so kind as to volunteer with us, and I look forward to working with you. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me, either via my talk page or via e-mail at nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com should you prefer. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tearfree's Link and the Three Reverts

Thanks for the welcome, telling me about the three revert rule and the intervention, however since I'm not supposed to edit the page again, I would like to point out the problem with Tearfree's external link to her blog: Wikipedia:External_links, Links to normally avoid, Line 12: Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

Tearfree's blog entry is a personal story, so I don't think it qualifies as an exception, hence it should be removed. I also think it fuels the stereotype of Quebecers as rude and racist (where the guy says "get out of my country"). I don't dispute that it did happen to her, but I can't help but feel linking to such a personal story in an entry on the Saint-Jean-Baptiste gives that impression.

Finally, Tearfree edited 7 times, and I'm aware that this last point makes me sound childish but I still feel it's worth pointing out.

Disclaimer: No, I'm not a Quebecer, I'm an Acadian. TheJF 01:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I had no idea about the four-revert rule, but will respect it from now on. Could you please tell me what symbol I must type to sign my name? Thank you, Tearfree

To JF, I don't mind my link being dropped if it's a policy not to link to blogs however I do object it to it being dropped because you think it stereotypes people. first of all, I've never heard the stereotype that Quebecers are rude and seconcly, there's a difference between racist and rude, and there was zero discussion of race in my post.

I will respect others' decisions on whether my post should remain, however if the traffic to my blog is any indication, people do indeed want to read this post.

Regarding the race thing, it was the reaction from the cyclist, I quote your blog: "The cyclist got back on his bike and rode off, calling over his shoulder to Tearfree, “By the way, this is my country. So, next time, speak French.”", which even though it's over linguistics, if somebody would say that to me I would consider it racist, as in, the cyclist was being racist towards you. However, this is all moot at this point, so I just want to apologize for any offence that I could have caused you, and finally, I wish you a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste ;) TheJF 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really flattered that you two want to have this conversation on my talk page, and honestly it's fine with me if you do, seeing as we're all getting along just fine now. But it'd probably be easier for the both of you if you moved it to your respect talk pages. If either of you has any further questions or concerns, just ask me, and I'll be happy to help out. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 01:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear CheNuevara,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you have too few edits in the main article namespace. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. —Xyrael _{/ 10:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Katholikentag

Thanks a lot! savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC at Democratic Underground

I thought you might want to lend your wisdom to the RFC currently underway. BenBurch 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am *trying* to disengage there. BenBurch 00:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest is that they are warring with the people who showed up as a result of the RFC...  :-( BenBurch 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tip of the day project update

Just trying to get things better organized around there. Toward that end, I've created a task list template for the project. If all the members of the project placed it on their user page, we could all keep in touch more easily (with announcements, alerts, etc.). It, and the latest announcements can be found at:

totd task list template

--Go for it! 17:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navbar

Thanks for reminding me!

I really like the bar, but usually use Opera on Wikipedia: if I can work out a way to get your bar running in Opera, I'll be sure to tell you: the code works fine (like you said, the :hover element works in everything but IE!), nice job.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder and for a great new tool!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not too bad in HTML and average in CSS, so may have a go at styling it in my userpage colours! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 20:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your idea may work, I'll give it a go when I get some time! Sorry you couldn't find the old message, I archived the other messages too efficiently!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 09:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, CheNuevara! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. fetofs ^Hello! 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I don't know of anything that could cause this. You could look around in the Bug pages or try some workarounds, using the monobook skin, logging in inside IE, disabling enhanced recent changes... Other than that I'm completely unaware of anything that may cause the problem. fetofs ^Hello! 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your welcome message

Hello, CheNuevara,

This is a message regarding your welcome template. The {{PAGENAME}} variable, which you are using, can produce unwanted results:

• The welcomed user will see the {{PAGENAME}} code if he clicks "edit this page"
• If the welcome is archived, the {{PAGENAME}} variable won't make sense, since it will change to reflect the name of the archived page.

For these reasons, you should consider substituting the {{PAGENAME}}, by using CheNuevara instead of {{PAGENAME}}. If you do this, the following series of events will occur when you substitute the template onto someone's talk page:

• {{PAGENAME}} finds the name of the user (e.g., "Jimbo Wales"). See m:Help:Magic words for more info. However, it does not make a permanent copy of this finding - it stays as a variable. If you look at the source code of the page at this point, you would see {{PAGENAME}}, not Jimbo Wales.
• To fix this, SUBST: takes the found username, and converts it from a variable into normal text. See Wikipedia:Template substitution for how this works. Now, the source code shows Jimbo Wales.
• However, the problem is that SUBST: doesn't know that you only want it to run when you put it on a talk page. In fact, it would run as soon as you made the change to the template, and result in something like Template:Welcome on the template itself. Then the {{PAGENAME}} variable would be gone, and the template wouldn't work right. To fix this, put and around the SUBST:. Now, the SUBST: runs only when you use it on a different page - the user's talk page. Caution: this only works for substituted templates! For more info about , see Wikipedia:Variable#Substitution.

If you want to make this change to your templates but are confused by this complicated explanation I'd be happy to do it; just contact me at my talk page. Also, you can take a look at {{User:Audacity/Welcome}} or {{User:GeorgeMoney/welcome}} for examples. Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I actually used {{SUBST:User:Audacity/Temporary}}, which resulted in the includeonly tags executing (ironically!). I'll have to copy-and-paste next time. You can see what the message is supposed to say here.

The subst'ing did mess up the instructions. The correct code is {{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}. I went and fixed your welcome; hope you don't mind. Λυδαcιτγ 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the old version was broken: see this code. What happened was that even though it was enclosed in includeonly tags, the SUBST: function executed as soon as you made the changes, making PAGENAME into User:CheNuevara/welcome. So anyone you welcomed would have gotted "Hello, CheNuevara/welcome, and Welcome to Wikipedia!" Λυδαcιτγ 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Civility

yeah but opinions are useless on wikipedia - 81.106.147.43 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A humourous jab at your userbox comment

My user page was shorter than "all" my userboxes until I added the joking picture at the bottom. ;) —It's The Cliff! 19:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marienkirche

Hello there! I tend to translate via .txt documents on my own computer before uploading the complete product, hence why not much appears to have been done. However that is the opposite; translation is in good progress. Naturally when it is, each of our contributions can be amalgamated together.

As well as contributing to Wikipedia, translation for me is an excellent revision tool for applying my knowledge of the German language. Consequently I will politely decline your offer because of that reason, as this is a goal I set myself to complete. I would also have found it more courteous if you'd have waited for my response before taking any action, as while of course nobody owns a translation, to have intervened on someone else's undertaking without at least waiting for their response could be interpreted differently. I daresay you wouldn't want your nor anybody elses good intentions being misconstrued. :) Thankyou for your concern!

Kind Regards, WilliamH 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken. I can easily anticipate that for some people, they just simply forget about such a task. I generally use the computer once a day at least, so I don't know how I appear not to have signed in for a week, how strange!

To resolve any ambiguity I will be more comprehensive about article translation status. It had occured to me that this might be necessary, it clearly is now. :)

I hate to have sounded pedantic about the task I've undertaken but it is easy to see how something like this could be misinterpreted. Given your previous experiences, I allude to the fact that you were probably not expecting me to reply nor was anyone else aware I'd "abandoned ship", so to speak :) Glad to see a potentially acrimonious misunderstanding resolved neatly. Best of luck for your pursuit of Adminship.

Regards, WilliamH 13:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood. In response, I have edited my translation area and replaced it with "stub or generally smaller English article". I agree that "stubby" is far too ambiguous in relation to my own work and that of other people's. To be brutally honest, at the end of that day in particulary I was very tired and there are probably better labels to give it than a New Article. Please bear in mind that even on my personal list of completed translations, I did not list it as a new article created by yours truly.

In response to the deleted comments you made earlier, I/it could've (been) argued that you wouldn't have felt slighted because of the extraneous work you did, had you not become involved, but as I'm sure you'll agree, that would have been pointless and would've achieved nothing. Ultimately, among this learning curve for all involved, the most noteable outcome is this: a good article.

Just because an article isn't on the "requested translation" list doesn't mean it isn't worth translating. There are literally thousands of articles out there that could benefit from translating, just have fun with the search engine and be vigilant in looking for those red links! And of course if you're translating an article not marked as requested, chances of glitches like this occuring again are minimal ;-).

Regards, WilliamH 22:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

tyhank you for your message i hope you enjoy my page

love lillozb xxx

[edit] French liberal parties

This is not at all a misguided Afd attempt, although I may have made a mistake in the process (which I attempted to correct). "Liberal" is very equivocal as a term, since it has totally different meanings whether you understand it from a US perspective or a French perspective, which is why it shouldn't be used here. Left and right-wing categorization is traditionally used in France annd is lot more appropriate. Tazmaniacs 12:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to correct this... thanks! Tazmaniacs 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)