User talk:Kyorosuke/Archive/9

This is an archive of previous discussions. Please do not modify it.

Congratulations/what about the list?

Loved your {{User:Sean_Black/civ}}, it made me laugh, thanks. Well done too on your successful RfA, although I voted strong oppose largely on the basis of "the list". What was the deal with the list? It looked kind of funny to me, and I think to a few other people as well. My name was on the list. Should I be worried? --Guinnog 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Sean. I noticed you hadn't answered my question above about the list and thought perhaps this was an oversight. It seems a reasonable question and wondered if you would be able to answer it for me. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats? Alphachimp ^talk 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. I hope you can take my criticisms on board, though you are of course free to continue as before. Stephen B Streater 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

מזל טוב on the readminning, Sean. Tod clarify what I was talking about next to my vote, I couldn't shake the feeling that you deadminned yourself so you could run for adminship again, as a sort of validation. Specifically, I was referring to the fact that Wikipedia is not a support group. Anyways, congrats again, and welcome back to the battle. Hopefully you've sorted out whatever was stressing you. Cheers, Tomer^talk 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Congrats on readminship. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed! Don't catch another case of the crazy, it cuts your productivity. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome and congratulations. I am sure that you shall continue to enjoy the real fun of building the Project. --Bhadani 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite my oppose, welcome back. I hope you use your adminship a little more wisely this time. Have a great day! Computerjoe's talk 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is da wikipedia?

what is da wikipedia shizzle?! 81.153.202.233 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask myself the same question everyday. I find that a visit to my local Roscoe's House of Chicken 'n Waffles is able to help me clear my head; perhaps it will be similiarly life-affirming for you.--SB | T 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Shizzle dizzle hizzle, is there a gd wp artle on chicken? 81.153.202.233 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicken and waffles is a well-referenced, well-written article.--SB | T 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sword of Kahless

Hi! I noticed the AfD decision on Sword of Kahless was to delete, but the article is still there. Not sure whether you just haven't got around to finishing the deletion, or whether this is a repost, so I thought I'd flag it with you. StuartF 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the article and then created a redirect to the article Bat'leth at the same title. See [1] and [2].--SB | T 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

King Kong Koo Koo

What did you do to the King Kong page? Please put that song link where it belongs, in the music section.

It also has a link-to-nowhere. Why not just delete the whole line?

1) Its called disambiguation. 2) Red links are not harmful.--SB | T 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Man, Red Link

What's up with the disambiguation hatnote to a red-link? [3] —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--SB | T 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah good. Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania?

Hi Sean,

Did I recall correctly, you said you planned to attend Wikimania in Boston. Will I see you there? Please say hi, and if you get a chance I involved with a couple of sessions on Friday afternoon. I'd like to meet another North Country Wikipedian! Walkerma 06:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be there :).--SB | T 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, see you there!

Calpernia

Well I had made this redirect page to Calpernia Addams but you changed the redirect to Calpurnia. I know the two names are variants of each other. But well Calpurnia does not have point to a single article whose subject has spelling with the 'e' on place of 'u'. So well its just my opinipn and it could very well be wrong , but wouldn't it be better that we put Calpernia Addams in Calpernia page instead of in Calpurnia?

Maybe we should change the contents of the Calpernia page to
Calpernia can mean:

• Calpernia Addams

For subjects with name Calpurnia, see the disambiguation page Calpurnia.

Unitedroad 12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I altered the redirect because, at the time, I was looking for Calpurnia (or, more specifically, Calpurnia Pisonis), but misspelled it. Feel free to do whatever you wish, but, at the very least, I believe there should be some form of disambiguation, even if it is a simple note at the top of Calpernia Addams ({{redirect|Calpernia|other uses|Calpurnia}}, perhaps).--SB | T 22:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[No header]

thanks for the tips. Seanmcpherson1 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephant Man Colbert Vandal

Looks like you and I both caught it at the same time and rv-dueled. I have to admit the placement of that for cleverness if nothing else made me laugh. - rootology (T) 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiacy and Wikipedia

Hello sir, I am an editor for the Tinwiki, a conspiracy themed wikipedia. I noticed that you had some interests in conspiacy theory, and figured you might be amused (or at least bemused) by our variant wiki. This is just a friendly message, thanks for listening. Nygdan 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerto delle donne cruft

I know you were upset that there wasn't a cruft section in that article, so I just thought you should know that a very insightful and thorough peer reviewer has pointed out three different things he thinks are crufty. This includes a murder and dwarf dancing. I just want to say "It's there because dwarf dancing is funny." but I don't think he'd accept that. Have fun at Wikimania. Mak (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh! Cool. :) --SB | T 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agony in Pink

IMO Agony in Pink deserves a mention on the MMPR page - It is fairly infamous for its content and at the time it was extremely controversial in the MMPR fandom on Usenet. Even today mentioning Agony in Pink makes some internet MMPR fans feel green. (If you need a source for that, I already have a large USENet search) WhisperToMe 21:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan fiction is rarely encyclopedic, because anyone can write it -- only when it recieves it attention from outside the squestered community that they originate from should they be included. Quite a few people have written salacious stories about characters from children's television and quite a few people have gotten upset about it. Until it is more than just those people, it is simply unimportant.--SB | T 21:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it caused an Australian Broadcasting Group to censor a newsgroup - http://www.auspaytv.com/archive/news99-00/n080200.txt WhisperToMe 04:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'll weigh in on the side of mentioning it, Agony in Pink was pretty dang controversial and I'd wager it meets our notability requirements. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. It would probably be more appropriate on Kimberly Hart, though.--SB | T 05:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Aristocrats

I would say the page needs the disambiguation link at the top - many people with no sense of puns do think the Disney film is called "The Aristocrats". I think there's even a scene in this film where someone says that people are often confused by the title of the joke. I replaced the notice - talk to me if you disagree. --Grace 02:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect for The Aristoctrats. but I agree we need a better notice on whatever page it redirects to needs a good dab comment/link. John (User:Jwy talk) 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my reversion after trying to come up with a good comment for the joke page. John (User:Jwy talk) 04:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My primary concern is that articles without paranthetical disambiguation notes should not redirect to those with them; the solution to that is either to keep the redirect as I had it, or to move The Aristocrats (joke) back to The Aristocrats. I have no strong opinion either way, but if you choose the latter, the best dab notice to use at the top would be "For other uses, see Aristocrat (disambiguation)."--SB | T 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Stronger (dab)

Hi, it seems odd IMHO for the "Stronger" page to be the disambig page and the "Stronger (dismbiguation)" page to be the redirect, but that's the trouble with using comparative adjectives (strong - stronger - strongest) as titles! I wonder whether it would be more logical for "Stronger" to redirect to the disambig page instead. After all, the thing ought to be named for what it actually is! I'll admit that there are probably many page pairs in WP that function like these do as well. But it seems too much like a shell game to me:

Can you find the link that isn't piped?

• Stronger

• Stronger

• Stronger

As I write this, any link intended to load Britney's "Stronger" that is just coded [[Stronger]] will load the "disambig" titled "Stronger". All those "Britney" links will need to be cleaned up, I suppose. My involvement with this has to do with the fact that there's a play and opera called The Stronger. I had no idea Stronger was a pop tune!

In closing, it just now seemed to me a better idea that because of popularity, Britney's "Stronger" should carry:

"Stronger" redirects here. For other uses, see Stronger (disambiguation).

- (In which case the pages codes need to be swapped!)

Is that the way it was? apparently not. This is what I call a wikiworm: a can of worms with respect to what page a majority of wiki browsers (that is, users) expect a link to load. Not exactly like Forrest's box of chocolates! So think about it.

Signed,

Schweiwikist 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you want to put an article rather than a disambiguation page at Stronger. My only issue is that there is no reason for a dab page to use the parenthetical suffix unless there is an article at the location without the suffix. For example, Super-1 is a dab page, but it isn't located at Super-1 (disambiguation). On the contrary, Solidarity is an article, and the primary topic for that title; it includes a link to Solidarity (disambiguation).

As to the issue of links, it doesn't really bother me; any intelligent reader will find what they are looking for.--SB | T 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"My only issue is that there is no reason for a dab page to use the parenthetical suffix unless there is an article at the location without the suffix." This is a point well-taken. The real question regarding the word "Stronger" is, what sort of article would qualify under that exact title? Probably nothing. So your move makes sense. (Except that dopey pop tune that happens to have that name . . .) I've yet to see how often this pattern occurs in WP.

"As to the issue of links, it doesn't really bother me; any intelligent reader will find what they are looking for." Alll-righty then.  ;) --Schweiwikist 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. I was looking for somewhere to place a disambiguation link to the Kamen Rider Stronger article, and was surprised to find that Stronger was an article about a song, not a redirect to Strength as I had expected. I moved the article to Stronger (single), changed Stronger into a redirect to Strength, and added a section to Strength, a disambiguation page, linking to the single and a few others. What you have done, splitting that section off into it's own page, is fine with me.--SB | T 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. but now check this out: Stronger (single) now "redirs" to Strength. As I write this, though, only this page links to it! Go figure. Schweiwikist 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

civility

Please be civil (AFD). I am not questioning you intentions, please don't question mine.

Weren't we writing recently thusly - "(Remove speculation and unreferenced material.)" ? `'mikka (t) 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Viva la cruft!

<SU182> Any tips on how to create a good article.
<bp0> add lots of minor references to obscure video game series to a "trivia" section.

I thought of you. --Keitei (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, awesome.--SB | T 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeta Beta Tau

Sean I really think you are out of line for deleting all of the Zeta Beta Tau article. Let's completely ignore the fact that whoever editted that was acting stupid, and look at the article itself because that's all that matters-

History: Founding - Please tell me what you think here is a copyright violation.

"Merging with other fraternities In 1959, Phi Alpha merged into Phi Sigma Delta. In 1961 Kappa Nu merged into Phi Epsilon Pi. In 1969-70, Phi Sigma Delta and Phi Epsilon Pi merged into Zeta Beta Tau." Again this can't be rewritten in any way. You can't tell me you think these facts are a copyright violation. That would be like saying "George Washington was born on (whatever)" is a copyright violation of a biography on George Washington. Doesn't work that way when you are dealing with short factual statements.

"Pledging abolished In 1989, ZBT eliminated pledging because of hazing incidents that were occuring at the time.[2]"

This is a uniquely written sentence and sourced. Where's the problem?

"This change was not new to the world of fraternities, as in 1971 Lambda Chi Alpha became the first North-American Interfraternity Conference (NAIC) fraternity to eliminate pledging."

This fact is user written and not from a website.

"Semi-Annual Brotherhood Review Vote"

This whole section is also user written. You shouldn't be abritrarily deleting the hardwork of Wikipedia users, please be more careful next time.

Sh15uya

Hehe, thanks. I was going to do something like that the next time somebody pulled a revert on me.Aresef 05:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I was happy to.--SB | T 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Uniforms

In regards to your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Uniforms, I'm suprised that you didn't find the original research-based arguments for deletion valid. Could I persuade you to take another look, or perhaps at least to pick your brain for why you didn't find them valid? Powers ^T 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of Star Trek as a source for information about the fictional Star Trek universe is not original research, it's the use of a primary source.--SB | T 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the policy:

"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions."

Obviously some of the information in the article (such as the oft-mentioned "Captain Picard wears red") satisfies these exceptions, but there is was significant content there that does did indeed make analytic, synthetic, or (I'm adding one here) speculative claims. However, taking another look at the article, most of the OR claims have been removed or replaced. I still think the original closing was in error, but I can't really make an objection to the current content. Thanks for your time. Powers ^T 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of a television show as a source of information about that show's plot or characters is not original research, and those who think otherwise are wrong. End of discussion.--SB | T 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA Wangi oppose

Good find on his edit. I found your reasoning a little bit harsh, but dead on: it swayed my vote. Oh, and I wanted to express my undying love for you. St.isaac 06:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

QED

Juste a note. This and especially this are inapproriate way of expressing your disagreement, especially that you are an administrator. Just thought I would let you know. You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Socksgame.jpg - fair use?

Why don't you think this picture is fair use in Socks (cat)? The article clearly devotes a good paragraph as it stands to discussing the computer game the cover demonstrates. The only problem I can see is that the article is not specifically about the game, and given that all the available information about the game is in that one paragraph, it's never going to be released, and it's only relevant to the article about the cat, if a separate article was created it would be a no-brainer merge. It's certainly not just there for decoration: it helps to show that the game did actually exist. When info about it was first inserted into the article, I removed it because I couldn't believe it. It also meets all the other required critiera as far as I can see - no free alternatives, we're certainly not replacing the "original market role" for a game which is unreleased.

The criteria it may not meet are that the image as uploaded is too high-res and the fair use rationale I wrote back then is insufficient, but I can easily go back and fix those if you assent to including it in the article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not as "obvious" as you think, but you can do what you please.--SB | T 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. We certainly don't need a fair use image of it in both articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your comments on my rfA, in the end I did manage to become an admin. Please let me know of anything I do that you've got an issue with. Thanks/wangi 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees

I'm starting to work to clean this article up. I think there is a lot of good information, enough to be a "Good Article" candidate, and later maybe even a featured article. I think the main problem with this page is that it reads like a fanboy page, going into details that should be reserved for the "Further Reading" sections. I've started working on it here and would appreciate any comments about it as it progresses. I am using the featured article Jabba the Hutt as a guideline. Bignole 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take a look.--SB | T 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture Deletion

I put this on the other admin's page, but since you must not have read it, here it is again: I have a few questions to ask about the deletion of 4 images on the John Vogel page.

• 3 of the 4 images have been on that page for about a month. Are they violations now but not a few weeks ago?
• Here's what you said: Removing innappropriate usage of fair use images - please keep those to the articles that specifically discusses them) How does an article on John Vogel not specifically discuss John Vogel? Jonhhy Cage and Reiko both have an entire sections discussing them in the article. I mention Mortal Kombat Armageddon, but if that's not enough I'll add more on it.
• Copyright violation? If that's the case, then why are the same pictures allowed on other pages on Wikipedia (Again there are entire sections discussing Cage/Reiko-Please read the John Vogel article). The only image that does not appear anywhere else is the john vogel image. I thought I sourced it correctly but apparently I didn't. What do I need to do differently to make that picture legitimate?

Please read and be familiar with Wikipedia's "fair use" criteria before attempting to lecture me. However...

• The ammount of time it takes for a mistake to be corrected does not change the fact it was a mistake. They were copyright infringement for however long they were there, and they're copyright infringement now.
• The key part of fair use is that the images are not merely decorative. On the articles about the characters, the image of the characters is fair use because it illustrates the subject of the article in a way that no free image could; the same goes for the game cover. Once again, please read Wikipedia's fair use policy and criteria.--SB | T 13:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"please keep those to the articles that specifically discusses them"

There are specific sections in the John Vogel article which have Cage/Reiko in the titles. Please read the John Vogel article.

"the image of the characters is fair use because it illustrates the subject of the article"

They illustrate the subject of the Cage/Reiko sections.

If you can't find the Cage/Reiko sections I can post them here.

A failure to respond will indicate to me that you no longer take issue with the pictures.

That's a bad attitude, because I most certainly do take issue. Add them to the article again and you will be blocked from editing.--SB | T 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN: (Maybe if you actually responded to what I am saying there would be no problem.)Thanks for completely ignoring this:

"please keep those to the articles that specifically discusses them" There are specific sections in the John Vogel article which have Cage/Reiko in the titles. Please read the John Vogel article.

"the image of the characters is fair use because it illustrates the subject of the article" They illustrate the subject of the Cage/Reiko sections.

If you can't find the Cage/Reiko sections I can post them here.

Perhaps what you don't understand is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a largely free encyclopedia. We tolerate images that are not released under a free license only under strict provisions, and only when strictly necessary. They are not strictly necessary in this article, therefore they cannot be in it. Again, I will ask you to read Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.--SB | T 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay well let me ask this: If all moderators follow the same guidelines, why do you do differnt things? Prodego allowed all the images to remian. Cowman deleted all four images. You deleted only three. If you all follow the same guidelines, then why are you doing different things?

The first image was removed as it was tagged for speedy deletion due to not asserting fair use criteria or being blisted for commercial use only. The current image you have up there right now, Image:Johnvogel9mu2.jpg was also automatically tagged for deletion in 7 days unless a copyright status is provided. A list of image licenses can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. As for the other images, they do indeed seem purely decorative, as copyrighted pictures are not necessary to understand those sections. And yes, I should have been clearer and referred you to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, as the last three images served for a decorative purpose instead of being crucial to the understanding of them. Also, you can sign your talk page comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of them, which will sign your account name and time stamp automatically. Also, editors are much more likely to take your edits in good faith if you use edit summaries (and the preview button, as I've said before), so people can tell at a glance what was done by each edit. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My last question wasn't answered: If all moderators follow the same guidelines, why do you do differnt things? Prodego allowed all the images to remian. Cowman deleted all four images. You deleted only three. If you all follow the same guidelines, then why are you doing different things?TigerManXL

Woops, I accidentally said 3 tildes instead of 4 - 4 timestamps your name as well, 3 just leaves your name, sorry about that :). Anyway, can you provide a link showing where Prodego allowed the images to remain? I don't see him editing the page anywhere. Besides, not all administrators deal with copyright issues anyway. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Third page of the history (cur) (last) 02:25, 22 August 2006 Prodego (Talk | contribs) (John Vogel is not a Mortal Kombat character) That's proof that he looked at it and kept the pictures.

Uh, well he never specifically allowed the pictures there, either. As I said, not everyone is familiar with WP:FUC or deal with copyright issues. Cowman109^Talk 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you check if the new Vogel picture is okay? I updated the copyright status. TigerManXL 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to be tagged properly, though there still is the issue of its usage: The current template, for example, states that it is fair use to use that image if it is used "for identification and critical commentary on the video and its contents," which isn't what it is being used for. I'll get another administrator's opinion on the matter, though. Cowman109^Talk 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay so how should I change it, that is, if I should change it? TigerManXL 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I changed it to copyright-film, which is the same frormat that the picture of Ed Boon is in the Ed Boon article. Thus if my picture is invalid, so is Ed Boon's. TigerManXL 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

My apologies for my recent blatant vandalism. I often find it hard to properly contribute to the Wiki community while drinking. --emc! ╬ ^{(t a l k)} 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Taco rice

I think it's wrong to say taco rice is a part of Japanese cuisine when it so obviously is an example of Okinawan cuisine. If you desire to, maybe it could be specified in the article that Okinawa belongs to Japan but I really don't think that's necessary either. It's an article about an Okinawan dish and not about the relationship between the Okinawan islands and mainland Japan. (Mackan, not signed in)217.209.197.17 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A large group of readers do not know that Okinawa is part of Japan. they need context. It would be just as wrong to simply say, for instance, that William Cocke was "a politician from Tennessee". Having said that, I am willing to compromise on the wording; all I ask is that the first or second sentence makes it clear that Okinawa is in Japan. Thanks.--SB | T 22:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never lived in the States but I suspect inhabitants of Tennessee are more likely to say that they are Americans than Okinawans to say that they are Japanese. I suspect also that Tennessee doesn't have a long history of being independent from the rest of the States, and that it isn't actually physically separated from the mainland. I think saying it's a Japanese dish is definately wrong, and if people don't realise what country governs Okinawa, all they have to do is click the wikilink. That said, I'll see if I can come up with a wording that can satisfy us both... 217.209.197.17 19:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For a parallell, see the article on the catalan soup escudella. The article doesn't mention that Catalonia is a part of Spain. Should it? Is it really relevant? 217.209.197.17 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Chilwell School

RE your edit of the Chilwell School article:

You changed the school name to "Chilwell Comprehensive School", however, as of September 2005 the school's name has officially been Chilwell School. Please try to make accurate edits in future i.e. make sure you know details before editing an article.

An editor such as yourself, who seems to be so critical of errors and the like, should be much more careful in the future. If you do not know the subject of the article well, then simply leave it alone. People critisise Wikipedia for being innaccurate - in my opinion it is people such as you, who attempt to edit articles to correct them when you do not know if you are correct or not, who contribute to this view of Wikipedia.

Please refrain from incorrectly editing articles in the future.

Tom 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic

I figure you have a really good understanding of what is encyclopedic and what isn't. Currently there is a debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville episodes. These editors are trying to create a "list of episode page" for Smallville. Normally that is fine, but Smallville already has this, in the form of Seasonal pages instead of one giant list. Also, they mean to create over 130 single episode pages. I know this has become common practice but it is my opinion that most of the information in those pages is unencyclopedic. If you look at List of Buffy episodes you can see that many episodes contain fan information about the show, or just restate "cast". They also draw out the plots to scene by scene lengths. I have stated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes that these episode pages belong on Wikia (where the Smallville eps are already linked to, on the season pages). I'd appreciate your opinion as an Admin about TV show pages, and the such, and about how this "list of episode" page for Smallville is currently about to wipe out 6 already existent Season pages and 130 Wikia pages. Thanks Bignole 14:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fauxtography on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fauxtography. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Alabamaboy 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Black/civ

You admins are all the same — Rouge! You liberal commies have no right to be on Wikipedia. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain revert

hey sean black, i noticed that you are an admin so i won't argue with you regarding the revert. quite frankly i don't really care that much. but i wasn't trying to be funny or "ridiculous" either and felt that both articles have genuine content, so the least you could do is be respectful enough to provide an explanation. maybe you have data that shows one page getting substantially more hits than the other--if so that would be a genuine reason. you shouldn't asssume that because you are admin that things other people do in good faith but differ from your pov that they are "ridiculous". Parnell88 07:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about creampie? If so, then I implore you to use a little common sense. Do you have any evidence that there is anywhere close to the same number of people who would be looking for the food item, which has been around for hundreds of years and is widely known, as opposed to those who would be looking for the neologism that isn't used outside the pornographic cinema industry? Come on, now.--SB | T 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the food term has been around much longer and is more well known too. My question is--and this is important as future reference--at what point does one article's important take enough precedent over the other to NOT warrant a redirect (vs. a disambiguation page)? For example, I added a disambig page for the acronym "WMG" because I felt that Warwick Manufacturing Group was not necessarily less important than "Warner Music Group". Other pages I have simply gone straight with the redirect instead. I try to go by whether there are articles existing in Wikipedia--which seems more objective--rather than "common sense" which is subjective and often POV. Please explain. Thanks. Parnell88 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Grading importance is naturally subjective. In this case, do you really believe that this obscure porn film neologism is just as important as a food item that's been widely recognised by millions of people for hundreds of years?--SB | T 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't place to much hope on getting an explanation Parnell88! From what I've seen, Sean Black believes his opinion is always 100% correct, and does not concern himself with the actual facts of the matter. He is exactly the sort of admin that Wikipedia doesn't need. He damages its reputation and asserts his opinion on matters/articles that he does not even have thorough information on. Tom 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All this because I changed the intro to an article so it would match the title. Maybe instead of screeching you should move the page.--SB | T 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it began with that, but since then I've read your talk page and looked at your contributions and it is clear to me that my initial thoughts about you were correct, and you are not a worthy Wikipedia admin. Tom 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you maybe point to a few examples? At the very least, I'd like to improve as an editor and administrator, so I value your input.--SB | T 16:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mullah

The template was optional for users and it didn't urge anyone to proceed killing them.

It was just freedom of thought.--Patchouli 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia.--SB | T 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "free speech" link.--Patchouli 01:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mild one

Template:User against mullahs--Patchouli 01:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• This one is humorous, too.--Patchouli

This is an archive. Please do not edit it.