This page is an annotated archive of the state of my talk page User talk:Jerzy as of 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC); later retrofitted with dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases.Reply Until this first set of annotations at 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC), it was an exact copy of my talk at that time (as can be verified per the green box, following almost immediately below); they will diverge, as annotations change the archive copy, and further use (including removal by me of most of the subsections of the "Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him" section) changes my talk. I am about to annotate this page by placing in boxes two sections containing discussion that i anticipate will develop further. These initial annotations, and probably further ones, can be identified by consulting this page's history page.
Oh, hell: i had decided each phase's edit history was going to be archived with the content, rather than left on the talk page itself, and actually acted on that once, 4 months ago, in creating /Phase 00 that way. Now i forgot that i'd carried thru with it on Phase 0, and passed up the chance to simply do it that way on Phase 01. I haven't thot thru, nor researched, whether a history merge introduces ineradicable basis for doubt into the process of auditing that the green box below anticipates. But i'm proceeding with the merge anyway, without working out the details re this special case i've created. If you actually care about verifying my Phase 01 archive, please throw a virtual pie in my face, and let's talk abt whether anything further should be done.
Before taking the following too seriously, please see the pink box above [blush]. (The temporary identity of the contents of the two pages can be verified by noting at the diff page for the first edit of 2009 (which shows no changes occurred in 2009 before the copy), a server-generated compare between the source and destination of the copy (showing no difference in content), and the deletion logs of talk page and archive (which preclude deleted revisions from the respective pages' histories)).
The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:
You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or "+comment". Click on that tab.
Fill in both the single-line edit pane with the title or subject of your message.
Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
As the last line, type
--~~~~
Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.
If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject,
follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading
[edit]
Click on that "[edit]" link.
Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
As the new last line, type
--~~~~
Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.
Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.
(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)
Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archiveedit
These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.
Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.[1]
The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).[1]
The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.[1]
Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.) I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.
If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.
Notes re history irregularities.
^ abcPhases 6-8 accumulated to excessive length as an oversize page, and were separated into these phases using edit-history splits.
These are all several years old, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.
These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but presently cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Oh how ironic that I almost titled this talk subject "Bell Hooks". Anyway, please check the debate again, because I feel that there is no argument against it that is valid. The new updates to the MOS with regards to capitalization state:
Some individuals, such as k.d. lang, do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources. If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual.
So for both reasons stated here, the move should take place. There is regular and established use - as seen on the covers of books, how she is listed in catalogs, and in news sources. If you consider the very few instances where her name is capitalized to constitute "multiple uses", then the second rule applies, as we should use what bell hooks herself prefers - and that is her name in lower case. I make further arguments on the talk page with regards to how the lower case is symbolic of bell hooks' personal philosophy, and it is therefore not only a courtesy to title the article in lower case, but reflective of the subject of the article itself. Godheval (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Geez, man...you really need to work on being more clear and concise. I seriously have no idea what you're saying here, and I'll try to point out the troublesome parts. I underline in red the parts I don't understand and follow them with my questions (in parentheses and bold).
At the start of the discussion that produced the text i read
What discussion, what text? Be specific.
a point was made (at the end of quoted phrase):(By who? Where?) that the obvious approach to adopting such a version(what version, of what?)does not keep the proper name lower case, in situations where a common noun would be upper-cased.(Lost, because I don't know what you're referring to in the previous phrase). I don't know what you think about the sent(ence?) in the article that starts "Hooks", but you are arguing that (whatever effect it has at the start of sentences) the guideline means that lower-cased personal names differ from common nouns in their treatment when used in titles.
Where am I arguing that proper nouns and personal names should be treated differently? Nowhere. I am arguing that they should be treated the same where necessary, as in iPhone (proper noun) and bell hooks (lower-cased personal name).
For you to be right, that issue has to (in light of the wp-tk phrase about start-of-sentence being an exception) have been discussed further on in the WP-talk page for the guideline, and have resulted in a consensus that is not properly reflected in the guideline.
I just plain have no idea what you're referring to here, i.e. which talk page or which issue. In any case, I am not arguing anything about "start of sentence" rules, only the title of the article. I am fine with "bell hooks" becoming "Bell hooks" at the start of a sentence.
I am prepared to be shown you are right, but nothing in the bh-talk page section on this suggests that anyone but myself recognizes that the guideline(what guideline are you referring to?!)'does not mean that(Aggggh! Does not mean what?!) unless it says that, so i'll be surprised if the WP-talk page should turn out to be consistent with that meaning.
I am also prepared to consider making a move based on a durable-looking consensus that the title should be changed, if that consensus does not purport (as at present) to be based on the guideline, but instead on some title changes not needing to be based on a guideline.
Again, what guideline? The argument did not start with a guideline, but with the fact that the author writes her name, and it is listed in most other media, in lower case. Because Wikipedia is such a rule-bureaucracy, supporters had to cite some guideline somewhere in order to give the argument more weight. That was done, thanks to the recent revisions to the MOS.
But i will not make a move based on a hasty or reckless consensus in support of an absurd construction of the guideline, and that is what appears to exist now.
There was nothing hasty about the consensus. The point was well-argued, and there is ample evidence that the move should be made - found in the mass consensus on the issue (as per publishers, booksellers, newspapers, bloggers, and bell hooks herself), the Wikipedia consensus on the bell hooks talk page, and the arguments that I myself have made with respect to how the naming convention is more than a courtesy, but reflective of the content of the article, i.e. bell hooks personal philosophy of suppressing egoism. With all this muddled language you use - no offense - I feel that any delay to go forward with the move must be some perverse semantics argument that I don't care to make sense of, since semantics is not the basis of my argument.
A whole bunch of pronouns that are not clearly associated with their original subjects - you know, like the way that relates to this, according to those rules? - a whole bunch of mid-sentence tangents (did I mention I like cake?), and a whl bnch of shrthnd makes you very difficult to understand. So let's reduce this discussion to the basics.
Reasons to move Bell Hooks to bell hooks:
1. MOS provisions for this exact kind of change, cited several times throughout the discussion. Specifically, the MOS says that "Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." The underlined condition has been met, as demonstrated in the vast number of sources - not including the author herself - that print her name in lower-case.
2. The MOS goes on to say "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual." This means that if we see the name both upper and lower cased in different sources - and we do, as there are a few sources that do not recognize the lower-casing - then we use the style preferred by bell hooks, which is to lower-case her name. Sources showing that this is her feeling on the matter have been cited in the discussion.
3. If the above isn't enough, there is also the point - well-cited in interviews with the author - that the reason she lower-cases her name has to do with the suppression of ego, which is part of her personal philosophy, and ties directly into the subject material of her many books. Since the content of the article is about the author, her philosophy, and her writing, and the latter two are irrevocably tied to the lower-casing of her name, the title of the article (as the header to said content) should be lower-cased as well.
4. Please note that the argument in favor of moving the article has nothing to do with whether or not the name should be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. The two arguments - the latter of which I am not making at all - are mutually exclusive. The iPhone article lowercases the first letter, and most sources that talk about the iPhone recognize that lower-casing. However, at the beginning of sentences, "IPhone" will be used. This naming convention is done merely with respect to Apple's chosen orthography. So why in the world would we not extend that same respect to a human being, especially when the reasons for honoring her chosen orthography are far more extensive and significant to who she is and what she stands for.
5. The simple and obvious fact that there are no sustainable arguments against the points raised above. Any resistance to the move is out of some strange and inexplicable obstinance. There may actually be an explanation, but I am not yet ready to launch that particular accusation.
Reasons not to move the article:
Oh noes, oh crapz! There arez nonez!
Case emphatically and explicitly closed. Godheval (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No offense, but I really - truly do not care. I won't edit even a letter, because I said it the way I meant it. Come what may, I don't edit or censor my speech for anyone, especially not some online encyclopedia. It's just not important enough. I couldn't care less about the editors or administrators or "crats" or Jimmy Wales himself. You're all just people - in the latter case a person who has done something extraordinary for certain - but no one that I will make any special provisions for. You have to earn that.—GodhevalTCW 05:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Deflavorizing machine, 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. Orange Mike | Talk 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Please, kindly do not ever restore my comments like that again. It hasn't been replied to, it was totally irrelevant, nobody wondered where it went or what it was. You created drama and confusion out of nowhere. Not again, thank you so much. user:Everyme 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The world will thank you for this eternally. user:Everyme 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I was just wondering why you made this a two week block instead of just indefinite. Godheval has made it quite clear he has no respect for Wikipedia policies on non-free content or civility, or for Wikipedia in general. In the meantime, he has continued to sling insults around, making rather odd judgements about why people edit and who they are, as well as speaking in a very condescending and patronising manner to anyone who will listen. I don't think he has anything productive left to give. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I understand your reasoning, thanks for clarifying that. I don't think me extending the block is appropriate, as Godheval has been primarily aiming his attacks at me, so I will trust your judgement on the matter. It's possible he will calm down and realise that we take respecting one another seriously, but if not, I suppose the next block can be indef. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've reformatted & moved your following cmt to its appropriate keeping-good-order position, as the second response to the same msg.--Jerzy•t 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Huh, nothing productive left to give. Does a personal attack require an expletive? Because I'd say this kind of thing is far more personal than a random swear word. But I won't say anymore, because it wouldn't be anything pleasant. —GodhevalTCW 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC) copied here by Godheval (talk·contribs) 18:32, 19 September 2008Reply
I'm not going to try to referee between the two of you, especially now. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity abt the principles involved:
on the strictly PA question you pose,
"Nothing productive left to give" is IMO close to a certain borderline, bcz while literally it is about your work, not you, the global scope of the statement puts it in a domain where the work/person distinction is at its blurriest.
As if that were not enuf ambiguity, my first take (without any clarity on whether WP-namespace writings would support me) is that personal character and perhaps value as an editor (e.g. "the pros and cons of [you] being an editor here") are likely to be important in construing the seriousness of proven acts, and evaluating the likelihood of reform (in contrast to edit discussions, where only the content is relevant and raising personal attributes makes no sense, except as unfair argumentation), so there should more latitude for weighing those aspects of an editor when a block (especially a long one) against them is actually on the table.
Finally, i'm just not sure what role is played in this realm by the phrase you omitted in quoting (my emphasis added here), "I don't think he has...". Frank opinions on character and potential may suddenly become relevant and blocks inevitably can seem to be (and conceivably may be sought as) hard-to-refute evidence of bad character or substandard worth.
In your last sent above, you didn't ask a question, but on the assumption that you want to be smarter about this, and weren't just joking in bad taste with the one you did ask, i'll say IMO you are at best too close to yet another boundary: in context, you are insinuating you think a personal attack would be justified, but for policy -- IMO that is a personal attack-- and you sound like you're looking for wiggle room for evading the promises made in your block removal requests, and haven't learned enuf for your own good. I urge you to immerse yourself in a study of NPA, and be guided by the classic advice, "When you can't say anything nice, say nothing " (my emphasis), lest we all find out just how short a leash you are now on. --Jerzy•t 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
In response to your last comments on my talk:
You still talk too much! But for the record, you were not one of the admins I was referring to. Who I am referring to should be obvious. And it's not just paranoia when the same people turn up to undo something you've done, even where that undoing is in accordance with WP policy. My issue was not in being corrected, but rather that it was always a certain few who so happened to be the one doing the correcting. Your mention of the fact that there are 1600 admins only reinforces my point, when out of those 1600 only one or two are directly overseeing what I'm doing. —GodhevalTCW 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
(You're referring to my 16:03 (and presumably not :25), 19 September 2008 (UTC) edit at User_talk:Godheval#Extension of block.) FWIW, i do talk too much, but its being true is not what keeps your saying so from being a PA: It's also true that i'm a compulsive asshole, but if you said so, i'd warn you again abt NPA, despite saying i'm outahere. As to the rest, other than my having used "paranoid" in its metaphorical sense, i stand by what i said. And you're embarrassing me by forcing me to say this: if you keep doing what you shouldn't, and the admin who's seen you do so before keeps taking note, that's called efficiency, bcz they're not restricting themself to looking over the shoulders of random people who are mostly doing what they should; when you construe that as personal animus, it's you who's made something personal out of the fact that someone is just doing the right thing. But then, i do talk too much. --Jerzy•t 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Opinions with revisions are always a sticky subject, so I mean not to step on any toes with this talk, just to compromise and bring out the best in this piece. I can see your point regarding equating Polish and Jewish suffering during WWII. However, I think that this revision omits a key element that was present in the following deleted sentence, namely that his output focused on the Polish American underclass:
"His writings' central focus on the area's Polish American underclass against the background of prevalent anti-immigrant xenophobia was taken by Poles as anti-Polonism."
I believe it to be crucial to communicate this to understand how it set off the later chain of events described in this article.
I was curious as to why you chose to paraphrase Algren's quotes instead of quoting him? Is this the preferred standard on wikipedia or just a personal stylistic preference--Orestek (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
'twas I indeed who contributed the part,mon capitan. I'm down with getting the ball rolling on collaborating on Mr Algren.--Orestek (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What's yr point? --Jerzy•t 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
It would have been nice of you to ask King of Hearts to reconsider his closure before opening a DRV. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Er ... No, i'll hold my tongue. Already noted, mentally reviewed in handling a bad deletion, and renoted. --Jerzy•t 20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brink (surname), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wanabo.com/music/brink. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Luarsab (given name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Luarsab. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply on my talk page. The template lacked {{Documentation}}, so it's purpose originally wasn't clear to me. Your post help clear things up. My interest came when I found "Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs" while categorizing templates in Category:Articles for deletion templates. I agree that the information from "Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs" should stay in Sexpressionism AfD, Stephen Kasner AfD, and Steven Johnson Leyba AfD. However, the text should be placed directly into each AfD debate rather than transclusion into each debate. A problem with using a template for this purpose is that the template cannot be changed without modifying an archived AfD debate, something that the closing of the AfDs indicates should not be done. While the information from "Template:Rebecca (or User:Undream) AfDs" should stay in the AfDs, the template itself should be deleted. With your permission, I would be happy to place the text directly in each AfD and have the template itself deleted. Thanks. -- Suntag☼ 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I simply forgot about the template and used the category instead. I was away from Wikipedia for awhile and forgot little things like that. :) A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
Hi! Sorry for not following guidelines when I split the Street Fighter: The Movie. I was being bold in the split, seeing how nobody argued against the merge. Anyway, the article as it is right now is actually about two different video games, both titled Street Fighter: The Movie.
An arcade video game developed by Incredible Technologies and published by Capcom.[1]
A console video game for the PS and SS developed by Capcom and published by Acclaim.[2]
Even though they're both tien-ins based on the film and share the same title, they're really separate games with their own graphics, mechanics, endings and character roster. A lot of people, even professional sites, tend to mistake the home versions of Street Fighter: The Movie as a port of the arcade game because of the shared title and their relation to the film, but they're about as different from each other as say Mega Man II for the NES and Mega Man II for the Game Boy. Even All About Capcom Head-to-Head Fighting Games, a Japanese book about the history of Capcom's fighting games, attempts to make this point clear by stating that the arcade version of Street Fighter: The Movie and covers the home version (Real Battle on Film) separately. Anyway, the original article was mainly about the arcade version, with a sub-section for home version. Not to mention Street Fighter: The Movie could also refer to the original film itself. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:47 & 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me know when there's something new. Thanks! Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
About the edits.
Arkane, F7 and Khyber] were only in the arcade version and not in the home versions.
Dr. Dhalsim and Thunder Hawk were in the film itself, but were not in either games (neither characters were actually digitized). So yeah, the editor likely confused the article as an article about the film and not about the games.
Anyway, I think Street Fighter: The Movie is better off as a disambiguation page, even if the film was simply titled Street Fighter and not Street Fighter: The Movie. Some readers tend to associate the Street Fighter: The Movie with the film itself and the unrelated anime version was also titled Street Fighter II: Movie in Japan. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't get what you're suggesting. You mean redirecting Street Fighter: The Movie to Street Fighter (disambiguation)? I don't think that would be a good idea. Its disorienting and anyone who searches for Street Fighter: The Movie on the search box will expect one of the two films or the video game tie-ins based on the live-action film. A dedicated disambiguation page for all four subjects would be a lot better. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for clearing that up. Anyway, the two Street Fighter: The Movie games are both tie-ins based on the live-action, hence why they were listed below the film in my original disambiguation page. There's also a third game with the title Street Fighter II: Movie, also released in 1995, but it was based on the anime rather than the live-action. It was released only in Japan and probably isn't very well known overseas (which is why I didn't listed). Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your cooperation! I'll let you know if there's anything else I need. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
... BTW, Quakers were excluded from Oxford & Cambridge by their religion. I don't think GCF III (or was it IV) went to Uni.
You have me fascinated, perhaps especially in light of (IIRC) Newton's fictional Puritan roommate's experiences in Quicksilver (novel), including seeing a Quaker abused (murdered?) by a noble student (who, later, was at least in the royal retinue and maybe king or pretender; the trilogy/octalogy has far too many details to retain or, for me, even track the implicit ones while reading), and in light of this Fox's U-age coming over a century later. Are we talking about some kind of oath? About explicit exclusion of non-conformists? (Neal Stephenson might lie to me, uh, i mean us, about that.) No doubt you've already guessed, for a dozen reasons, that i'm a colonial [wink], so please forgive my weak historical perspective on things British. --Jerzy•t 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Vernon replied: I think that undergraduates at Oxbridge had to assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. In 1836, University College was established and did not require religious conformity. Does this answer your enquiry? I am not familiar with the novel Quicksilver. Vernon White. . . Talk 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to go so far as to say "never place [[Category:Disambiguation]] on a Dab page", but if you ever find a case where the Cat is appropriate, i'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, plz use
+
{{Disambig}}. Thanks! --Jerzy•t 16:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I regret that I do not understand this. I am not even aware of ever writing [[Category:Disambiguation]] anywhere... If I have done something in error, please take me through it step by step, with idiot-proof instructions. MacAuslan (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Jerzy: I am 64 years old, and fairly new to Wikipedia. Altho' I have done some hundreds of edits, I am a novice in the technological side - and find myself too busy to research it properly. So I am still confused.... I don't know what a Cat is [?category?], nor a tag (in this sense), nor a dab page [?disambiguation?]. Looking at your welcome edit has not cleared my mind; and I cannot detect your edit of it. [WP:MoSDab|MoSDab] doesn't seem to preclude the ctegory into which the template put my page.
Etc, etc. Sorry to remain confused - as I am about whether to leave this response here or on your Discussion page. So I'm copying it anyway. MacAuslan (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I am Japanese. I reverted your 'Keiko' edits. Because there's no bogu meaning in keiko. Keiko means practice, lesson and rehearsal. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the message. I know the creator LordAmeth. I am leaving a message on his talk page and asking for RfD. BTW, other three entries on 'Pages link to Bogu' are OK. When you need any Japanese help, just ask me. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
hi, check out the new article, should meet the notability concerns. guten abend Pohick2 (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
yes, i am rather lazy using quotes, i find that others write better than me, so why reinvent the wheel. by rewriting i get a bland oatmeal when others have chocolate. for instance, i would never have thought of Edwin Land. and yes being weaned on MicroSquash crashes, i save early and often - after every sentence (i dont trust the software not to crash mid paragraph) maybe i'll get over it soon. thanks Pohick2 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge of "Gaius Iulius Iullus (disambiguation)"edit
As I look at the article now, I also think, it would be better if it was only included in the article about Iullus. So I can move the information there. And about the referencing - I am almost sure that I used Smith's DGRBM, so after moving it I can look it up again and add references. Thanks. --Tomaxer (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer. But I think, I would prefer to only add contents from the disambig article to the normal one, since its history doesn't contain anything useful. However, if you think that also its history should be put there, feel free to say. Then I would appreciate your help. --Tomaxer (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I didn't think about GFDL. From this point of view, I now prefer doing also the history. So, can you explain me how to do it, please? Thank you. --Tomaxer (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In first place, thank you for your explanation. I read your reply and unterstood main points. I have done pre-merging images of the both article. However did I understood well that I should prepare the new merged and cleaned up version on disambig page (this is the one that should be IMO redirection page after the whole process)? If yes, I can start doing that and after finishing it I'll drop you a note. Btw the principle of the merging is interesting :). --Tomaxer (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
So, it should be done now. I added more text from Smith's DGRBM for those other Gaii Iulii Iulli. Now, when it is together, DGRBM-as-source template applies to the whole text. Moreover if you don't have any suggestions, I think, it is ready for merging. --Tomaxer (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I also have to thank you for your cooperation and politeness, I very appreciate that. I've also learned some new things while working on this. I added the history items to the talk page and it should be OK now. Thank you again. --Tomaxer (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Could you have a look at these edits? They probably contain some useful changes, but some of them are clearly breaking things. I would repair it, but I'm not very good at grammar (edits), so it would be better if someone other did it. However, as you are reading this, it may be already repaired. Thank you. --Tomaxer (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you prod'ded this article, which I created and did most of the contributions for. I have no real objection to it since there's no real encyclopedic content there; I just would like to know what the meaning behind your prod rationale was. I mean... you're not saying he's a bad director because his short film premiered alongside "Snatch" are ya? ^_^ ;) JuJube (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, in the past I used to be a bit of a music video aficionado and could rattle off directors and their works like nobody's business, but not all of them have anything that would merit an entry in Wikipedia. I once read an interview with Tori Amos where she gushed about James Brown's work, but that's all I really have and it's certainly not enough. I don't object to the article being deleted, so I won't remove the ProD. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Talk:Taj Mahal (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Talk:Taj Mahal (disambiguation)|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BlackandWhite 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Jerzy, for your diligence. However, I am actively in the middle of sorting through three ancient Greeks by this name, two of whom are mentioned in other articles. Readers of those articles may indeed wish to know who these figures are (as I did); I didn't even realize at first they were two different people. So please give me some room to finish this work before you bulldoze everything; I may have to continue tomorrow. I appreciate formatting and style corrections; however, unless the policy has changed, it is permissible to have red links as an announcement of forthcoming and to implicitly ask for such articles to be contributed to. Besides, the first rule of editing is always "Do no harm." Cynwolfe (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jerzy. Thank you for the note - I admit that I did not see it was your username who added Reza to the list, and had I noticed I certainly would not have so speedily labeled it as vandalism. My apologies for that. As you said, adding this name to articles has been a drawn-out saga, and yesterday it flared up again with the creation of two socks trying to recreate this name. I don't believe anyone has been banned for "acting in concert" here, but a few sockpuppets have gone down.
That said, considering we've been through the AfD and found this name to not be notable, I'd say there's every reason to keep it off the list. In general, wikilinked words are those that are notable and if they do not have an article, are inviting the creation of one one. Until further review, this person is not notable - so adding his name to the list seems no more useful than adding the name of your pet goldfish. Perhaps even less, since it might encourage someone to create the article and end up here again. So I'd say let's keep it off the list, unless you have a reason that it should be there. Thanks, FlyingToaster 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Just describe what you're doing in the edit summary. It's really not a big deal. FlyingToaster 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I anticipate further development of this discussion, that is not yet reflected in this archive.
I discovered considerable confusion about this name on Wikipedia, which may not have been rectified by your recent changes. Please note that there are essentially NO other articles linking to or referencing Jason Nesmith, the wrestler. Identifying the wrestler's almost-orphaned article as the primary topic would seem unwarranted. There are more that reference Jason Nesmith (often but not always spelled NeSmith), the Georgia musician also known as Casper. There are also a few references in other articles to a third Jason Nesmith, who, based on all references I could find, is not the same person as "Casper." This third Jason Nesmith is mentioned in at least a couple of other WP articles-among other things he was in a band with Donovan Leitch (actor). Whoever his father might be, I am not aware of any dispute that this third Jason Nesmith is the son of Nurit Wilde, and deleting the reference to him at the disambiguation page has the unfortunate consequence of confusing him with the other two (as, indeed, many of the links I found had done). And then of course there is also the character played by Tim Allen. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to your comments:
1. As to Jason Nesmith #3's parentage, here are some sources I quickly located via Google:
A 1994 New York Times article about Donovan Leitch and the band Nancy Boy, identifying Jason Nesmith as "the son of Mike Nesmith, formerly of the Monkees." [3] This should be sufficient, but I also found:
A statement by an arts reporter for the Boston Globe that Nurit had Michael's child, together with a direct quote from Nurit referring to Jason Nesmith as her son. [4] It's my understanding that this source is deemed reliable pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
Official publicity for Jason Nesmith's album Portrait, which includes the following: "And yes, he is the son of Michael Nesmith. But don’t tell anybody." [5]
I also found a published book on Google directly identifying him as the son of both Mike and Nurit. I am uncertain about the provenance of the publisher of this book, however.[6],
2. By the way, based on Ahmet Zappa's official Myspace page, it appears most likely that the Jason Nesmith who was in Nancy Boy is the same one who is referenced at The Frank Zappa AAAFNRAA Birthday Bundle. This is not the same person as Jason "Casper" Nesmith.
3. I am hopeful that we can please shoot for a higher level of civility in this discussion? We are only discussing a disambiguation page for a group of relatively obscure characters. It's evident that you didn't like my proposed solution, and that's fine. You obviously have more experience with DAB pages than I do. But do you really think it is necessary or appropriate to hurl such epithets at me and other editors such as:
And especially, gratuitous uses of the N-word in such a manner as to suggest that you equate other editors' good faith edits with the use of this word?
The remainder of this discussion was my contrib at 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC), which may be found at the end of the discussion's comprehensive copy at User_talk:Jerzy/Phase_02#Jason_Nesmith. --Jerzy•t 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Jerzy- I enjoyed working on the Conch edits with you. I had noticed that confused sentence a few days ago and watched the article. It's an interesting example of how a single good faith, but erroneous, edit can really screw up an article. I also found your user page interesting. Glad to meet you. Ecphora (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I anticipate further development of this discussion, that is not yet reflected here.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Consummation (usage), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is not an encyclopaedia article.
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. DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
