User talk:Turnstep/Nov 2005

Regarding your mom... so to speak

I apologize for the repeated reverts, though you must keep in mind that the clear consensus on the discussion was that it should be a redirect. An edit summary like "Revert and expand : please do not change to a redirect" doesn't tell me that you actually are aware of that, if you were indeed aware of it. Regardless, I finally get it; clearly the whole "your mom" thing is distinct from "yo momma". I'll make sure to point that out if it goes up for deletion again! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your mom forgot to read the AfD! :) So did I, apparently, else I certainly would have voted. Thanks for the note. I honestly don't know what happened there, maybe I thought it was a speedy delete for some reason. Anyway, I obviously should have added a comparison sentence to the article earlier. Sorry for all the confusion. Next step is probably to tackle the dozens, as I am not convinced that "your mom" truly evolved from that, as the page indicates. Ironic thing is, I've never even used the phrase (except here) Turnstep 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... so now what? The article was actually deleted at one point, and recreated by someone else, but there is still a AfD record out there. What is the proper procedure? Call for another AfD? Thanks. Turnstep 14:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be appropriate, though the bureaucratic overhead is sort of annoying. I would definitely vote to keep it this time because of the clear distinction from the dozens. It is a bit odd to have the "past AfD" notice on the talk page saying that the outcome was "redirect" and yet have the article not redirecting, but it seemed like the correct way to document the AfD. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. Actually, I believe there is an explicit way to request undeletion, and that would probably be the way to go. Check out Wikipedia:Deletion review. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I've got to get more sleep, it is explained quite clearly on the AfD page. I just created the undeletion request. Knock on wood. Turnstep 01:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I want to thank you for voting in my RFA even though u opposed me I understand why. Thanks Again --JAranda | watz sup 23:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re RDBMS

User:Leandrod made such mess that only an admin can revert it now. User:HappyCamper has already stated that would be willing to help out here. --R.Koot 17:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hi there! I've completed your page move as requested. Please double check if other links need fixing; I don't think there are any double redirects, but it's always nice to get someone familiar with the subject to take a look. :-) --HappyCamper 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Pamri

Hi, Thanks a ton for supporting and voting at my RFA. I am now a wikipedia administrator. I hope I can keep your trust. Thanks again. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for voting on my RfA. I realize that I have not been here long, however other users said I would do just fine as an administrator, so I followed their advice. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fictional heroes

I was wondering what the ordering of the names is supposed to be as an example you have both Abraham Lincoln and John Axon under the A's and Mohandas Gandhi and Gino Strada under the G's and there are others. Is it by first or last name? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something else that might be useful in my opinion is a notice that says it's for heroes and that does not include entertainers unless they have done something outside of their field. Possible people for that might be Bono for his work in combating poverty or Eric Clapton for his alcoholism work. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23's RfA

G'day Turnstep, I have now signed my RfA. Thank you for pointing that out and I hope now that I can secure your vote. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I imagine that in changing your vote to support, you also intended to strike your neutral vote? It's still there. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. Turnstep 02:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Turnstep,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup

Hi, Turnstep. Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

argh.. my signature

Thanks for the tip about it. It's been fixed. splintax ^(talk) 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCH

I've responded to your point on WP:SCH. I hope you'll stick around and be part of the debate. Any suggestions you can bring would be helpful to continuing to garner the most wide spread opinion we can get to solve this issue once and for all. Gateman1997 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ackroyd

Indulging in an edit war would attract attention to the article and ruin the novel for anyone who hadn't read it. I won't do that, which is why I reply here rather than on the talk page. The spoiler warning should be enough but it isn't. It's simply too easy to see the resolution. I speak as someone for whom Ackroyd was ruined by a "helpful" magazine article on Agatha Christie. Rather than acting on principle, don't you think it would be more considerate to simply remove temptation more effectively? Vincent 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this:

The book is most notable for its surprise ending where the murderer confesses in writing:

I am rather pleased with myself... What could be neater, for instance, than the following: "The letters were brought in at twenty minutes to nine. It was just ten minutes to nine when I left him, the letter still unread. I hesitated with my hand on the door handle, looking back and wondering if there was anything I had left undone."

Ordinarily I'd agree that the spoiler warning is enough, but this case is special because it's so easy to reveal the ending, which once known is impossible to forget. The first AC I've read was the ABC Murders some 25 years ago. I remember loving it, but I've forgotten who did it, so I could probably read it again as if it were the first time. Not so Roger Ackroyd. <sigh> Vincent 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Vincent 05:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Dear Cathy

Done! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains

I'll try to help when I can, but unfortunately I'm about to leave for Thanksgiving, so I'll probably be off Wikipedia until next Saturday or so. I hope that we'll be able to work with the Scarecrow fellow to find a middle ground and improve the page through consensus. Of course, that depends on his behavior as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

whazzzzzzzzzaaah!!! yeah.. i wasnt talking to you.. im sure grammar and spelling matters...but only when u're talking with serious people, not with childish dictators with no encyclopedic or encyclopedist knoledge, lol. thats why i hate forums. ooh!, got a NEWSFLASH for ya: concensus involver more than 2 people unless it is a marriage... ooh! got it! congratulations, im all open minded. and one more thing, when answerin', dont write above the original messenger, i know u think u're opinion is the most important, fellah, but, since nobady made u the ruller of wikipedia, the rest of the world don't agree! "yours" --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 01:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for asking for advice, you did the right thing in contacting other users for opinions. While I may have disagreed with you on the issue on the page itself, I won't abide any more abuse by T-man. That's profoundly out of line on his part. Please do keep contributing to the Wiki, I'm glad you're here! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a little polishing on T-man's edits to the page, and I've also been talking with him on the discussion page. I think he's beginning to calm down a bit and tone his excitable style down — I don't think he means to be offensive. He's a non-native speaker of English and I'm guessing is pretty young as well. I don't think he means to come across as confrontational as he does. I hope you can come back and work on the page with us. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I agree with the not meaning to be offensive. I would think being called Hitler or Mussolini would be an insult in most cultures. (I'm still not sure which one I am, and which one you are, though :). At least he is finally using the talk page, and slowly learning how to edit pages. No worries, however: I'm keeping an eye on the page, just laying off the editing for a bit and focusing my energies elsewhere. I'll probably jump back in at some point and help clean up. Feel free to answer my talk page Lex Luthor conundrum in the meantime. I still support separating the page via historical / non-historical, although the name of the latter will be tricky, as pointed out. Turnstep 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he doesn't mean to be as offensive as he was being. (I agree that he was out of line in some of his comments about you, but I'm trying to assume good faith. I've managed to do some good work with him tonight, for what it's worth. I'll probably get started on the fictional/historical split some time tomorrow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, do not take me so serious. but you are not as polite as you think you are turnstep. i've been using the talk pages for a while now... actually, i find that kind of commentary ofensive. since the begining you have been talkin about me on third person, and undoing my changes also before asking me or anyone. the hitler thing, you fell for it and you know why, you are too authoritarian. when ever you hear one opinion slightly similar to you you think thats enough to do whatever you like. And some times not even that, you just call it vandalism and report you "fixed it". Your lex luthor conundrum has been answered, superman is a comic character and so does luthor, if there has been aparitions on other madia those are "based on the comic character" and if there are villains that were created outside comics or haven't even apeared on comics we specify it. About the historical characters, maybe we could disapear the category and put them in the category and work they apeared in.I dunno, whateva is cool with ya--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme card manipulation

This may get few hits on Google and may possibly be invented, but card manipulation (not Extreme) is not only used by magicians but also used as a show of of dexterity, so in that regard the article is right and Card magic needs serious expansion. Would you consider a merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd request

Hi. I noticed that you voted keep on the lintilla Vfd page. That one, along with Planes of Existence are in the balance in terms of votes. As they both meet the requirements for notoriety that Wikipedia has, I would hate to see them be deleted, when the Vfd was put up 30 seconds after creation of the article, hence adversely influencing voting. Please can you also vote on that page, and if possible encourage others to look at them both and make their votes, before it is too late. Wikipedia policy says that once deleted by a Vfd, an article cannot ever be reinstated, and any attempts to do so are considered to be vandalism. For such important areas, I would hate to see them not be able to be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. Zordrac 17:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments

Most confusing edit summary ever :P Raul654 21:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks, I think. Guess I should have quoted "common sense" :) Turnstep 22:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

walking game

Hey I noticed that you took "the walking game" off the sports list. I was wondering what you have against the walking game. Also, why do you wish to delete the "the walking game" article from Wikipedia despite the fact that this article is perfectly legitimate and many people are interested in it? thanks Don Burns 17:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page - Turnstep 19:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]