User:Deckiller/archive34

| Deckiller | Talk Page | Barnstars | Sandbox | Statistics | Urgents |

Your edit summary at Same-sex marriage in Spain

Has me a bit confused. Saying "gays" is like saying "Negroes" for Africans? How so? In the first place, Africans would refer to a person's geographic location, while Negro would be a description of their race. That term is indeed outmoded (in the United States, anyway--it's still accepted in other countries and languages), but gays is the currently accepted term for homosexuals (more for men than woman, but accepted for both). While I can see your point that it might be unencyclopedic (though I am not entirely convinced of that), it is by no means pejorative, which your edit summary seemed to imply. Could you clarify this for me? Jeffpw 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Yes! Succinctness has been hammered into me, I'm afraid. :) BuddingJournalist 07:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

Could you do me a favor and weigh in your opinion as admin on the talk page of The Godfather article? I'm planning on bringing the films up to FA status after I finish the Star Wars saga, I found a "References in other works" section, which is fundamentally a trivia section. I've seen it many times before in film articles and it holds no real value to the article beyond a collection of miscellaneous references that are made to the film in other media. I looked through it and found no information that I felt could be merged into other sections. So I deleted it. It's a trivia section with no notable information, so I deleted it. It was reverted and I have since been engaged in a discussion with User:Edfitz over the section, although he seems more interested in discussing my lack of Wikipedia etiquette than the contribution the section brings to the article. He claims that I am simply disregarding what many editors have been contributing to for the longest time with one "single stroke", and that some how I should have been more civil about it (when I explained myself in the edit summary when I went about deleting the section). Now he has more or less refused to discuss the section, because he "doesn't trust me" because of my lack of "humility and concern" for other editors content. I'd appreciate it if you checked it out and talked some sense into Edfitz... or me. The Filmaker 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I guess I need to know right now whether or not you agree with me that the "References" section in the Godfather article should be deleted or not. The Filmaker 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These references your asking for are already present in the "Impact" section, which mentions Casino, Goodfellas, Mean Streets, The Firm, and The Sopranos. The Filmaker 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • As you can see on the talk page, he's refusing to discuss the subject any more and is prepared to engage in an edit war. I've already been blocked once for that (although it was under very different circumstances). I think you agree with me that the section should be deleted. How should I proceed from here? The Filmaker 03:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Wait. Finish all the work in the sandbox, then switch it over to the main article, then get a peer review. Have I got the right order? The Filmaker 05:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Hi, thanks for the input. Right now I'm getting swamped with many other issues right now, so I don't have time to go back and change my decision. However, feel free to do so if you disagree with it. I was attempting to clear the backlog, and therefore might have overlooked it, but please feel free to change it. —Pilotguy (radio check) 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Account

I tried an account, but it was less productive than just going anonymous. I find that contributing anonymously focuses on the content of my contribs, rather than on whom I might be IRL. I tend to focus on WP:BLP and hard-science and the ocassionaly "artsy" film, but I also dabble in replacing prose with something that is more direct, simple and clear. I see that you take a different stand on anonymous contributors. Hmm... I promise not to contribute anonymously from this public library to anything related to Final Fantasy. Hey, you might want to check if your entry at WP:WBFAN is up-to-date, but of course, it only counts noms rather than significant contribs. I hope that "hospitalized" on your Wikistress thermometer is a joke and, if not, that it is not because of the project itself (the diagram not really make that clear and the ruptured thermo bulb is suggestive of such). I am still waiting for a confirmed report that somebody actually died in some manner where the project was a contributing factor. It seems like just a matter of time what with so many people involved. Oh well, let's both agree that 5K FA's by the end of 2007 is a fine goal for the project. -- 199.33.32.40 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ESB reaction section

There is an issue with the "Reaction" section for the Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back article. The issue is over whether film was initially received poorly, or did receive favorable reviews. I'm unsure of how to proceed. On the one hand, Ben Burtt is quoted in the DVD commentary as saying that the film was received well. But on the other hand, I've only been able to find two negative reviews from that time. I was thinking that we might put it to a mass vote or discussion in the Star Wars Wikiproject, similar to the vote over how the titles should be formatted. What do you think? The Filmaker 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure!

Yes, I've been in The League of Copyeditors for a while now, and I enjoy it it. Oh, and I'd love to assist in helping with the Queen article. Sad to say I haven't helped in the Queen WikiProject for a while now, and it's time I start helping! :P Although I have made a citation and contributed a small bit to Freddie Mercury. But nonetheless, I'd love to help you with Queen. And btw, it's great to know there's another Queen fan on Wikipedia. Rock on! \_m/ — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure to something else

Yeah, I should get back into the hardcore writing side of life. I've been doing nonsense like converting all of the FF talk pages to the ArticleHistory template, but I just finished that up, so I'll get back to something else. Probably flesh out Minigames of Final Fantasy first, then maybe move on to one of the other mergedpages, like character classes, or muck with FF5. Hopefully I'll have some progress to report when you get back to the fictional side of life! --PresN 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any of them, so that'll be a pain. --PresN 06:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at the moment, just finishing up all of your great suggestions from a while back. I'm glad the creatures page finally got moved back to article space, the original was pretty awful. --PresN 06:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A.J. Wright

I did some minor tweaking, but overall, it looks pretty good. It's a shame they're closing so many stores; I'm a big fan of T.J. Maxx, which seems to be fairly similar. Any idea why they're named T.J. Maxx and A.J. Wright? BuddingJournalist 07:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed! Keep it up! BuddingJournalist 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hi

Thx; I will drop in briefly every few days; May–August is good for me. Tony 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stress

Thanks for noticing. ;) The Filmaker 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

 Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors participation drive!

Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

• Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
• Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! Rintrah 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Break time?

Sure, although I was a bit confused by what you meant. I'm assuming you wanted to me to help you out in clearing the "ready for final proofread" section. Is that correct? BuddingJournalist 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, great! Although according to the instructions, I'm only going to be able to proof a few of them. :) BuddingJournalist 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Guess who made an edit!

Vortex of Wikipedia seems to have me again :P Jedi6-(need help?) 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even plan on it yet. Someone just linked a page to me and while looking at it I saw a dispute forming and I just couldn't help but give a warning. The next thing I knew I was editing pages addictively. :D Jedi6-(need help?) 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What are the green and red numbers in my watch page? Jedi6-(need help?) 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome. P.S. Maru arbitrated?!?! The second I leave that guy goes to the dark side :( Jedi6-(need help?) 07:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)