User talk:Muchness/2008-03

Chaubaby

Thankyou very much for the information. I will revert my edits regarding this matter. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 12:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to let you know about the on-going discussion. --Muchness (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Infinite Parameters Possible?

Well, no, but ain't it best to keep all possibilities open?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(Replied at Template talk:Wiktionarypar‎#Infinite Parameters Possible?.) --Muchness (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the code for infinte parameters?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An arbitrary string of text? What is an arbitrary string of text?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please and thank you.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And "...definitions...". What do you mean by "...definitions..."?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

O ya sure, that really helps. Hey thanks really for you time, that was a lot of effort, thank you. I've seen, or I thought I've seen a way to have infinite paramters with out explicitly typing it out? I think {{main}} has something like that, or {{seealso}}. I don't know, I'm not too sure. What do you think?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was no trouble. The templates you mentioned have limited numbers of parameters and work the same way as {{wiktionarypar}} – {{main}} has a maximum of 10 and {{see also}} has a maximum of 15. {{multidel}} is an example of a template that has unlimited values; like the example I gave earlier you have to type it all out. --Muchness (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So never at any point in any of the {{main}} or {{seealso}} versions did they have any way codewise to express infinite parameters? Cause I thought they did, at least at one point (in one of the versions). Maybe they changed the metawiki program..... eh.?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware, if you're curious you can review the histories of the templates and see how previous versions functioned. --Muchness (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

michael riccardi

This of the infamous man who attempted to kill a revrand in new york ¬Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.251.125 (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Can you add source info to the Image:Michael Riccardi.jpg image description page, so that the photo's veracity can be confirmed? Because the photo at present the page states that the photo was created on 09/18/2008; it depicts a youth but Riccardi was 27 at the time of the assassination. --05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate information i think the person who entered that just put the day they added the image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.251.122 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 March 2008

Thank you, I'll make a note of this at the deletion listing. --Muchness (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Ant Enterprises

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Red Ant Enterprises, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Gazimoff (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. This article probably should be deleted as non-notable. --Muchness (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Cebactokpatop

Hi, I want to query you on moving the RfC on Cebactokpatop. Since the page was created by Allyne, who wants an RfC on Cebactokpatop, and I signified my agreement and added to the page, it seems clear that the two-person threshhold has been met? Seminarist (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please ensure the certifiers add their sigs to the Users certifying the basis for this dispute subsection, and feel free to move the RfC to the approved section at WP:RFCC. Thanks and regards. --Muchness (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair warning

Hiya! I noticed you reverted the Solanum (virus) article to its previous rediect. I did that too, and got an inquire from Apocmonk (talk · contribs) about why I reverted his edits. I just want to let you know you may get a similar message. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning; it looks like a straightforward hoax – the article's references were all non-existent. We should probably warn him with {{uw-hoax}} if he persists, unless he can provide some references that aren't spurious. --Muchness (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oakyuz

Thanks for letting me know- I've given him a final warning, and I am just going on new image patrol now, so if I see any of his... J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your attention to this matter. --Muchness (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Leviathan World (Comic)

Dear Muchness, thanks for your note. I see the article was proposed for deletion (Comic with no referenced assertion of notability; suggest deletion per WP:N.). You are right concerning the article of Leviathan World (comic): I mean I didn't spend enough time on placing more references. I will improve the article in the short time (to avoid its deletion). Please follow my work on it and correct where necessary. Thanks in advance. Summerman

No problem, I'll keep an eye on it. --Muchness (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Muchness, tried to improve as suggested to save the article about 'Leviathan World' comic. Please have a check and let me know if I have to add more conents please. Thank you (Summertime) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerman (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Found also today more documents and references about "Leviathan World". Updated the article. Personally I believe by now there are enough info to avoid relative deletion. Waiting for your further suggestions--Summerman (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Muchness! Added other references and links today to improve elements of notability about this comic work. Think this article is quite complete so I removed the message as I was afraid to loose the text. Please leave me messages in talk in case you disagree. Thank you --Summerman (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(Answered on article's talk page). --Muchness (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Answered on article's talk page). --Summerman (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Muchness, sorry you listed for deletion. I see sincerely many articles in wikipedia surviving with less references. However I respect and accept your decision but will fight to keep the text as this work exists (I finally received a copy of the comic book!). I personally would like to keep alive all matters concerning Leviathan files. Please suggest a strategy to save this text. Thank you. --Summerman (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

re: The Patrick Star Show afd

Hey. I've replied on my talk page, but the general jist is I think TWINKLE messed up. Thanks for fixing it :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem :) --Muchness (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MY9DREAMKEY

Stop following me around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My9dreamkey (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't following you around per se, I just noticed you made some inappropriate and unconstructive edits (e.g., this inflammatory racial content), and reverted them accordingly. --Muchness (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What other conclusion could you draw from an Uncle Tom that is that freakin' ugly? And do you deny that blacks that are against affirmative do not benefit greatly by being so? I know white people don't, but they use the Uncle Tom black man as a political tool. Ever watch Fox News? They have about as many black Republican pundits as they do white when blacks make up less than 15% of the population and only about 5% of them identify themselves as Republicans. Now why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by My9dreamkey (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to review Wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing and the neutral point of view. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but personal opinions don't belong in Wikipedia articles. Content in Wikipedia articles must be substantiated with reliable sources. --Muchness (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lathander

Hello,

Lathander, an article you have been involved in editing, has been nominated for deletion. If there is anything you can do to improve the article so that it may be kept, please do so.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. As far as I can tell I didn't edit this article except to remove a deleted image, but I'll take a look at the article and deletion debate. --Muchness (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Muchness, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Those were kind words. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck, you'll do a fine job. --Muchness (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

TaskMaker

I noticed you helped some with the TaskMaker page, so I thought I'd let you know that I updated it some. I even added a screenshot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, looks good. --Muchness (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Think I should spin the sequel off into a separate page? There is a decent length Allgame review, but I'm not finding too much else (after all, version 1.0 was released just as Storm Impact went splat). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a redirect to the subsection is fine, probably not enough sources to establish independent notability for the sequel. --Muchness (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer

What is your problem with this article and the disambiguation? Pioneer is rarely used in the meaning "settler" today, and even less so in the meaning "inventor". It is however used by a variety of military organisations, still. The military noun meaning was the original meaning, and if you look at other articles, defining etymology is usually the good start to writing an article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for contacting me about this. I'm sorry for my part in escalating this dispute, we should have discussed from the outset instead of reverting each other. Let me give you my take on both issues on the respective talk pages, Talk:Pioneer and Talk:Pioneer (disambiguation). I'll add a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia talk:Lead section requesting further input. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Liquid logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Liquid logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Al (folklore)

		The Original Barnstar
		For excellent and quick writing on a now-strong article, Al (folklore) Drmies (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Muchness (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms

Hello. :) If you hadn't heard, Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast have recently been promoted to "Good Article" status. I was also thinking of nominating Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, and I figured I'd contact you since you've done some work on at least one of those. See the project talk page for discussion on that. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look. And kudos for your hard work in getting those articles promoted. --Muchness (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Danke. :) BOZ (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

re:Karimova

I was getting ready to request page protection, since the edit warring has been going on for over a month now. I was surprised to see how quickly my version was reverted though. I'll drop a note on ANI, though I'm pretty sure there are some language issues coming into play [1]. BTW, thanks for my first barnstar! Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I expect language issues may be a factor here. Still, if we can get a few more sets of eyes on the article, that can only be a good thing. And congrats on an excellent rewrite. --Muchness (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, all 4 disruptive users have been indef blocked. I definitely went over 4RR, but i'm pretty sure admins won't care due to the disruption. Thanks again for your support! Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope that settles the matter, hopefully now we can concentrate on improving the article! --Muchness (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pop music to Pop music (genre) revert

Why did you revert the page move for a WP:RM? Uncontested pagemove renames with talk page consensus do not require a WP:RM:

WP:RM: "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry."

That's exactly what was done, and I notified you of that in the edit summary. Did you even read the RfC before reverting? I'm concerned that you have abused process by demanding it where none is needed per WP:RM guideline and consensus per the talk page RfC.

If you actually object to the rename for cause (meaning you understand the issues and can name a non-trivial reason to not do the pagemove), that's one thing, but I'm concerned from evidence in your contribs that you may have process trolled the move log, (thoughtlessly trolled by seeking out process dissent where there previously was none) and thus wasted our regular article editors' time.
In 1000 of your contribs, the string "music" only appears once before this, and that was a vandalism case. This dearth suggests that you do not know music article issues, and therefore did not revert for cause.
Now don't get me wrong: I would be supportive of your doing this if a WP:RM listing was required, and I have firmly demanded more process when it was required yet not done. Whatever I personally think, by wide consensus this community is strongly opposed to unnecessary process.

You seem like a cooperative editor, so I'm hoping for a reasonable explanation from you, a willingness by you to avoid doing this again (or at least making it look so wrong), but ideally withdrawing the seemingly unnecessary WP:RM to avoid a long new delay after the article's improvements have already been stalled for three months due to little interest! Btw, please don't mistake my redlink for a newb. I've been editing about as long as you have. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While I was away editing I see that you have stated your reason at the article. Your revert for the stated reason of title format seems a reasonable cause pending my research of the issue, but you should not have opened an WP:RM during an RfC at least until you had discussed it at the RFC and determined that we could not quickly agree. (And there was no previous RfC – the same one has been extended for three months due to lack of interest.) Now even if we can quickly agree, the entire holiday that is available to me and the other editor is going to be lost before the WP:RM is closed. This is the thoughtless kind of process use that causes editors to leave in frustration. Milo 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want my honest opinion (I assume you do since you contacted me on my talk page), phrases like "process trolling" and "abusing process are rarely a constructive starting point for civil discussion. The way I see it, we both made good faith judgment calls and acted within WP's guidelines and policies. You made a bold pagemove that suggested to me you considered RfC issues had been sufficiently resolved to go ahead with the rename, I disagreed that the RfC had progressed sufficiently to determine that the rename was warranted, so I reverted and listed at WP:RM as the most appropriate avenue to attract the wider community input that the RfC had failed to draw (as you say it had been more-or-less stale and dormant for long stretches despite being open for a lengthy period of time).

I don't feel that withdrawing the move request is necessary, because I maintain that there are issues that need to be resolved before we move forward with a rename, and WP:RM is an effective way to do this. I don't have a horse in this race, I just think we should have prior discussion from as many interested parties as possible (something that didn't really occur at RfC) before moving a high profile article like this one. I'm hopeful that WP:RM will attract constructive input from interested third parties to resolve this issue one way or the other, and I'm happy to abide by whatever consensus emerges there. --Muchness (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

High profile?? Why? Because the actual music is popular? Due to the lack of regular editors and attention to the RfC, I drew just the opposite conclusion: that almost no one cares about this article.

I didn't object to your WP:BRD revert. I did ask for pagemove objections, and after the WP:BRD revert you had a chance to state them at the RfC – but you didn't. By not doing so, you made yourself look bad for the reasons stated above. So take my point about "making it look so wrong".

Now, if my research had shown you to be guiderules correct, you would have gotten away with this bad karma. Maybe you can still get away with it, if you can cite the guiderules you claim to exist that I can't find. So far, it's looking like every point you claimed is wrong. If that's true, then you've made a mess due to unintended consequences, which may well permanently screw up the article for that nice editor who's been patiently working on it for months. There's already an RM editor who may have opposed based on misunderstanding what the proposed move was. Non-music editors from places like RM can make bad judgments about music article content issues, including titles. As a regular music editor, I try to avoid groups of 'left-brain' judgments on music content, as opposed to proper English writing, or bad editor behavior.

If the points you made really aren't correct, I'm guessing that you think the guiderules still have things in them that are long gone. I know that happened to me a lot before I wised up. Milo 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Followed up at Talk:Pop music#Discussion. If you feel my conduct here or in general is to the detriment of WP, feel free to file a user conduct RfC and I'll participate in it in good faith. Regards and happy holidays. --Muchness (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All of us are allowed to do things that we should avoid doing. I want to hear all of your guiderules interpretations before I draw closure, but my tentative criticism of your actions doesn't seem like an RFC/U complaint.

It's looking like a misunderstanding/disagreement about guiderule interpretations, combined with process clumsiness and insufficient slack in a delicate situation. By tool analogy, a tack hammer should have been your initial choice, especially since you may be trying to drive screws with a sledge hammer.

If you had entered the RfC, we might have the logical discussion we are having now at the article, and we might have persuaded you to reconsider your position. If we couldn't, and you also felt strongly that you shouldn't just slack off to avoid unfairness to a music article, then would have been the time to open an RM process.

As it is, you have unleashed 'left-brainers' on a long-suffering music article with almost no defenders. Many music-art editors have an editorial position, something akin to inclusion-deletionism, that music-art articles can and do get unfairly screwed by 'left-brain' editors who 'just don't get it'.

On the plus side, I do like your attitude. Milo 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm clear on why you took exception to my actions and I'll bear it mind for future situations. Since your immediate concerns relate to guideline interpretations and not user conduct issues, I'll consider the issue closed pending the outcome of the move discussion, and direct followups to Talk:Pop music. --Muchness (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Muchness, Merry Christmas!

Muchness,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Game names italicized

Hello, I posted a responsed to a question you posted back in January 2006 about game names being italicized. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(titles)#Games Scwlong (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. --Muchness (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)