User talk:Gustave the Steel
Venom
[edit]As far as editing the Venom (Eddie Brock) page I did not intend for the video game to sound like it came later than Ultimates 3. I merely moved the entire section to the new subheading of In other media and did not notice the wording. It was a mistake of copying and pasting without proofreading it afterwards, so thanks for correctly that!! -Freak104 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
0.999
[edit]As an administator, when I saw the edit summary for this edit, I was sorely tempted to restore the text simply to find out who you would "report" me to. More seriously, you really should move these things to the arguments page; it's impolite to just delete them, and doubly so to do so after some other established editor has already replied to the original post. The purpose of the arguments page is exactly to have a place to shovel these things to so that they don't sit on the main talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I should "move" it? Where's the move button? Even if someone wanted to move the discussion somewhere else, the first step is to delete it from where it's currently at - which is what I did. The next step is to copy & paste the text over to the Arguments page; I think that particular action should be done by someone who is interested in the discussion, rather than someone who is only interested in keeping a Talk page on-topic. Gustave the Steel (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- The polite thing is to either do both steps (copy to arguments page and remove from main talk page) or neither, particularly when another established editor has already commented. There is a lot to say for that sort of collegiality. On the other hand, threatening to "report" an established user for restoring their own comments to a talk page could appear rude. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- The initial anonymous poster went against both Wikipedia's talk page guidelines and the FAQ for Talk:0.999... when he/she posted. Tkuvho has restored the disruptive discussion three times; as an established editor, he is aware that he is posting against policy. Politeness would be called for after a first violation, but he has done this three times in a row.
- In any case, I've taken the discussion to his talk page. Perhaps you agree that this represents a sufficiently polite response? Gustave the Steel (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tkuvho is not posting against policy; the leeway for editors to respond to comments on talk pages is extremely wide, and there is no policy that one cannot respond to off-topic posts. We do not, in general, prune talk pages in the aggressive way that you are doing here. Politeness is always called for, and your edits to the talk page are far representing from our best practices. Indeed, the final comment by Tkuvho is about editing the article (whether the lede should mention adequality) which is certainly on-topic for a talk page. On articles like 0.999..., seemingly off-topic discussions can sometimes be related to the best approach to use in the article, or to the relative weight that different items should have. If the discussion veers off into just talking about infinitesimals independent of the actual article, I think moving it to the talk page would make sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Now that there has been a significant amount of discussion that is on-topic, it's worth keeping. Gustave the Steel (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tkuvho is not posting against policy; the leeway for editors to respond to comments on talk pages is extremely wide, and there is no policy that one cannot respond to off-topic posts. We do not, in general, prune talk pages in the aggressive way that you are doing here. Politeness is always called for, and your edits to the talk page are far representing from our best practices. Indeed, the final comment by Tkuvho is about editing the article (whether the lede should mention adequality) which is certainly on-topic for a talk page. On articles like 0.999..., seemingly off-topic discussions can sometimes be related to the best approach to use in the article, or to the relative weight that different items should have. If the discussion veers off into just talking about infinitesimals independent of the actual article, I think moving it to the talk page would make sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- The polite thing is to either do both steps (copy to arguments page and remove from main talk page) or neither, particularly when another established editor has already commented. There is a lot to say for that sort of collegiality. On the other hand, threatening to "report" an established user for restoring their own comments to a talk page could appear rude. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:JNC Logo.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:JNC Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
