This is an archive of past discussions about User:Chowbok. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Reply: I removed the font.com links after following them, and seeing nothing I found useful, just pictures of the fonts (which are on wiki anyway) and pricelists. If we need links, I think they should be to the orginal creators/foundries (Adobe or Linotype, for most of these fonts). There are too many commercial vendors (see Type foundry's list of type distributors for a list) to be featuring just one.JDowning16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
IFPI/MPLX fight
Hi, I attempted to discuss edits to IFPI with User:MPLX. It didn't end happily. -- Dcfleck 00:48, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
Yes, I was following that. Thanks for trying! I think he's a bit of a kook. Oh well, as long as the NPOV note stays on there, it'll be okay... eventually somebody will come along who knows enough about the subject to rewrite it. --Chowbok
It would also appear that you do not follow the advice of Jimbo in that you have an abusive disregard for Wikipedia policy, yet you are quite comfortable in attacking both people and matters that you nothing about. The definition for that kind of behavior is ignorance. MPLX/MH 22:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do tell. Which Wikipedia policy do I have an abusive disregard for, and what "matters" have I attacked? --Chowbok 01:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously you don't call other Users perjoritive names, do you? Has it even remotely crossed your tiny mind that I share many of the SAME interests as yourself, but that its a case of "done that, been there" and that due to age I know something that you don't (yet), but that you are likely to discover due to your interests? I guess you won't know until the clock rolls on and someone calls you what you called me and then you will recall this little note. MPLX/MH 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I guess this means you no longer think I'm a sinister undercover agent of the IFPI. Well, that's an improvement, I suppose. But I don't agree with your logic (surprise, surprise). I know plenty of old people who aren't nutjobs. I think it's certainly possible to get old without becoming one. --Chowbok 02:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Common Era v. Anno Domini - parenthetical or not?
(written to JimWae):
I don't care about AD vs. CE, but I really wish you'd stop reverting my parentheses. The paragraph reads better with them. --Chowbok 03:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The part about origins in CE & AD is a complete sentence - it does not work combining the 2 sentences making one parenthetical to the other. I have mentioned this before that if parenthetical, 2nd sentence should still be a sentence unto itself & you have ignored it.
The sentence has bearing on Jesus, in that TWO calendar systems are based on his birth (tho faulty) - that says something about the regard with which he is held, making the sentence about Jesus too
Paragraph is in part about what year he was born & discussion about the difficulties & errors involved - it is not obvious to all that such is parenthetical.
Sentence also gives indication on how Jesus could have been born 6 years before he was born
Style guides generally say to avoid parenthetical expressions unless absolutely necessary.
It is not at all clear that your construction is better - and during a revert war on other more important issues, this is not the time to focus on that. Several people have been deleting the sentences entirely - When I put them back, I am not going to choose your construction, which you may think is better, but I have just given my reasons for thinking otherwise.--JimWae 04:00, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I respectfully disagree with your arguments. The point of the paragraph is to establish the birth and death dates of Jesus. The bit about 6th-century monks making an accounting mistake is not directly related to that main point, but is there only to clear up confusion about the dates. Therefore, it should go in parentheses; it is a classic example of a parenthetical aside.
I don't see anything in The Chicago Manual of Style that says parentheses are to be avoided. It's a little unclear about how to put a complete sentence within parentheses, but it does say "A parenthetical enclosure of more than one sentence should not be included within another sentence" (emphasis mine), which implies that it's okay if it's only one sentence, as is the case here. Of course, Chicago Manual of Style doesn't necessarily equal Wikipedia house style, so if you can point me to a Wikipedia source that contradicts this I will defer to your version.
As far as "more important issues" in a revert war, well, more important to whom? I find the entire issue you guys are fighting over rather dull. B.C., B.C.E., who cares? Now grammatical and stylistic fights, on the other hand... that's something I can argue over for days. --Chowbok 04:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Template Succession
Thanks. The box I used was apparently created before this template. I'll change the boxes to the standard template if you haven't already. -JCarriker 05:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
List of Jews
I saw a comment you made a while ago on this page about how there was no opposition to List of Japanese or List of Italians. Frankly those pages are just as bad and shouldnt exist. Unfortunately I doubt I would ever get enough support to get rid of them. freestylefrappe 02:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Why shouldn't they exist? What's wrong with them? I think it's interesting to see lists of people by ethnicity. Are we supposed to pretend ethnicity doesn't exist? —Chowbok 14:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Since when are Jews an ethnicity? And since when has there been an "official list of Japanese people". This clearly goes under the cat. of original research. freestylefrappe 18:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Jews have been an ethnicity for thousands of years, actually.
You may be right about the "original research"... but again, wouldn't that apply to a lot of stuff? Would List of golfers be original research? List of idioms? —Chowbok 15:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help. Steve blocktalk15:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at the changes more carefully. What you call "the body of the article" is an extended, unsourced/unreferenced/unverifiable personal commentary that violates Wikipedia's core content policies of verifiability, NPOV, and no original research. Some sections of the article were unsalvageable.
Such phrases as "infamous album," "notoriously under-produced," "bizarre quality," "the turn of events were indeed puzzling," "albeit with a lack of ambition never seen before in him," "sticks out like a sore thumb in this over-simplified atmosphere," "Without a doubt the strangest album ever released by a major group," and "its enduring strangeness" are subjective statements, personal opinions at best, that have no place in an encyclopedic article. The extensive, completely unsourced and mostly if not entirely unverifiable about the motivations of Brian Wilson and other musicians are clear violations of Wikipedia content policies.
This is part of a set of running disputes between user:BGC and other editors (e.g., myself, Mel Etitis, Hapsiainen) over various matters related to popular music pages, and BGC has been warned by several admins that his conduct with respect to the articles is unacceptable. He has responded by removing the earnings from his talk page and describing the admins as vandals in his edit summaries.
In the interests of Wikipedia:Wikilove, editors are encouraged to be accepting of others' dash preferences and not to modify a chosen style arbitrarily in the same way as they would refrain from arbitrarily changing "artefact" to "artifact" (or vice versa). The following five dash styles are currently in use on Wikipedia. Please do not change them to reflect your preference.
Hmm... I would repectfully suggest that you are misreading that paragraph. It says "The following five dash styles are currently in use on Wikipedia. Please do not change them to reflect your preference." (My emphasis.) "Them" in this sentence means the following five styles, i.e., if you encounter one of the five styles, don't change it to one of the other styles, or to something else. Using a hyphen-minus as a substitute for an en dash is not listed as one of the five styles. I don't think they meant "never edit anything to do with dashes". Feel free to prove me wrong, but otherwise I will continue to make this edit. —Chowbok06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You are the first person to actually know what I'm talking about. With regards to the dashes in succession boxes, what is the correct format? No one knows what I'm talking about! Please help! American Patriot 177622:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Crossing out flags
You asked on my talk page why a nation or political entity deserve respect. I think that the people who feel represented by a flag deserve respect, therefore it is rude to cross out flags. It is also unnecessary as there are many respectful ways to express legitimate concerns. ROGNNTUDJUU!23:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong. A flag represents a political system, not a people. If people feel represented by a flag, then they presumably agree with the ideals expressed by it. It's perfectly reasonable for me to express my disagreement with those ideals by crossing out said symbol.
If I crossed out the Nazi flag, everyone would understand I meant that I was against the ideals of the Nazi state. They wouldn't take it to mean that I was against German people, even though the flag did at one time represent Germany.
There's nothing holy about a flag. I am under no obligation to show respect to a symbol that represents a system unworthy of respect. So why don't you mind your own business? —Chowbok00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A flag represents those who choose it and who feel represented by it. If you cross out the Nazi flag you offend those who feel represented by Nazi ideology. Few remain today, and as the Nazi party was convicted for crimes disrespecting it is nothing surprising. Disrespecting the people who feel represented by a political entity that has achieved prosperity for hundreds of millions today is just rude. ROGNNTUDJUU!00:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Is starting a comment with "Sorry, you lose" your way to show how much respect you have for others? The UNHCR an UNAID help millions of people not to starve or get massacred every day. The UN helped to end the Iran-Iraq war and many others. Not the UN's fault that member countries do not commit themselves enough. ROGNNTUDJUU!00:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that not enough has been done to prevent or stop certain conflicts. It is however to be blamed on the member states and not the UN. Allowing every country to join regardless of their form of government is the only possibility to have cooperation of all countries. Even if I oppose a lot of what certain governments do - including the illegal invasion of Iraq - I am however glad that there is an organization that helps to deal with such problems and facilitate negotiations. And in spite of all the shortcomings, the UN has enormous achievements like the help to millions of people who are refugees or suffer from droughts and other catastrophees. The UN has also helped to find solutions for several conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war and most recently the first case at the ICC. ROGNNTUDJUU!20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A coalition of "legitimate" governments would not be able to convince as many governments to cooperate with it. Cooperation by as many as possible is pivotal in order to allow the UN to aid those who need it and to send peacekeepers or trial criminals.
My interpretation is that "centers around" means that the film arranges it self so that the thing it centers around is in the center, hence the film centers around that thing. Tnikkel22:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"film" was just a specific example to try to make my explanation more clear. For example: "The film centers around the robbery of ...". Tnikkel23:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There is only one center, you are not reading me correctly. Take the sentenence "Film X centers around object Y." Taking the exact wording I used from above but substituting specifics we get: "Film X arranges it self so that object Y is in the center." Clear now? Tnikkel23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Please point me to a website, a book, something, that argues against the usage of "centers around". Tnikkel00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"You wouldn't want to be an apologist for illogic, now would you?"
If you insist on removing every occurence of "centers around" then you should do it properly. "centers on" and "centers around" are not the same, they have very different connotations. For example, it is wrong to say that the film The Pink Panther centers on a diamond. The diamond only appears at the start and at the end of the films. "centers on" makes it seem like the diamond makes many appearances throughout the film, or even appears in most scenes, which it does not. So going by that Manual of Style you mentioned you should take care when replacing "centers around" not always with "centers on", because that is not the right term, but using the correct term. In this specific case I think "revolves around" would be the best of the two. And I would ask to you please review all your previous edits as I believe some of them suffer from this. Tnikkel01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Arklay Mountains edit
I never use discussion, so I hope I'm doing this right. It seems I'm always getting the 'it's' and 'its' wrong. Hopefully that's all I'm screwing up as I've basically rewrote the entire page. BTW, I can't use the AWB because I'm on Windows 98. It's a pain in the arse. - Gamer Junkie
And I give you this plate of delicious-looking chocolate chip cookies for your continuing work creating articles on individual fonts, and for initiating the discussion on typeface classification.
I was serious. Cows looking at you can't be tipped. You said there's some kind of joke about it. You're the one claiming your edit has a joke, not me. DyslexicEditor03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Dinosaur pictures
I can upload the dinosaur pictures to Wikipedia, but it would be better if you did. I could help you find the right copyright tag. If I do it, I would have to get you to state your approval and authorship on the pic page. --DanielCD19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Chowbok. The anonymous IP user that you've been going back-and-forth with on this article is actually a banned user evading his block. He is not permitted to contribute to Wikipedia, so I've reverted his edits to the article. Unfortunately, this meant that I reverted some of yours as well. I'm not sure what you would want to put in the article in his absence, so I figured I'd leave it up to you. Best, FreplySpang14:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Eisner
All claims must be verifiable, let alone a major claim about the creation of Batman. Wikipedia requires you to provide a citation. This is incontestable. Wiki etiquette also requires you to post sensible edit summaries. You posted "(How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? FOUR.)" -- Tenebrae08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy requires that your edits be cited and verifiable. You are making the same major, major edit at Will Eisner without doing either. You are using sock puppets to make this same change under different identities. And you are guility of highly uncivil behavior with your comments and your inappropriate edit summaries. Taken together, all your actions are well within the realm of having you User:Mtn and the IP at User talk:68.198.52.124 blocked.
I am asking you to please desist or I will be forced to seek this. This is gross misconduct that Wikipedia simply doesn't allow. Thank you. -- Tenebrae17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Change at Eisner
Hi,
Chowbok is not adding the "co-" before "creator" in regards to Batman at the Will Eisner entry; I am. I am a longtime reader of Wikipedia and only very rarely edit; this is the first time I've made anything other than a grammatical change and so I've never cited. I admit I can't figure out how to cite but would like to. I'm currently doing a project on Batman and have numerous sources that give Bill Finger equal (and in some cases, more) credit in the creation of Batman as we know him today.
Would you mind telling me how to cite and I will do so promptly?
Wikipedia also recognizes there are such things as meat puppets.
The same, highly controversial edit, without citation, that was never made on the page before, was suddenly made three times in 24 hours by three users, including two new users. -- Tenebrae21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Erasing posts
It's considered a breach of Wikipedia etiquette to erase posts, particularly those of other users. I'm sure the admins and the community would appreciate your returning the messages that you deleted. -- Tenebrae21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I should have said "other alleged users". My apologies for lack of clarity. And there is still the meat puppet issue. In any event, you've deleted posts. -- Tenebrae22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Compromise solution
I've made a compromise solution at Will Eisner that ID's Kane while eliminating the entire issue of credit, since this is an article about Eisner and not Kane. Please see it and let me know if you have any objections. -- Tenebrae00:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
When you Save As in AI12 and select SVG, the SVG dialog box should pop up -- here, you choose to 'convert to outlines' with the text. the SVG standard doesn't have povisions for actually embedding font files yet. THere are several discussions going on as to the legality of using SVGs for font previews; of which i don't really have an opinion. atanamir11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you not going to create a Request for CheckUser, because if you are not I am just going to close the suspected sock puppet case. Iolakana|(talk)11:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Eisner/Kane
I'm re-inserting the compromise solution. You have your claim, I have DC's and most historians. The compromise solution favors neither. You want to take it mediation, be aware mediators prefer compromise. -- Tenebrae17:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, this is not what I had in mind. It does not use the SVG text feature, but rather, it uses paths to trace the outline of the text. It is like tracing the outline of the fonts by converting truetype to SVG paths. I'll revert my change. BTW, has anyone raised fair use issues about using fully-reproducible SVG paths instead of a raster? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Well, of course I'm disappointed. I thought I explained how the subject meets notability criteria in not only the talk page, but the corresponding AfD. I was hoping as someone interested in Miss Pussycat, you might be familiar with this artist, as her and Quintron work with the subject when performing in Arizona, as well as taking the subject's band on tour to California. PT(s-s-s-s)20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, I am deeply offended. I came to you because I thought the subject might interest you and the debate could use your informed opinion. I was disappointed in your conclusion, but not upset. Now, you have tarnished my name on Wikipedia with an extremely bad faith accusation of sockpuppetry! Such hostility makes me wonder if editing here is worth it. I also wonder why someone who has been falsely accused of sockpuppetry would be so hypocritcal to make that accusation themselves. PT(s-s-s-s)18:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice job refuting the brown Snoopy theory. On the caption of my lunchbox image, I didn't identify the character (and I think it's safe to say it's the WWI flying ace character, not the only ace but the only one Snoopy impersonates) because putting that in pushes the next header off to the right on some browsers. I kept playing with the caption and the intro and the image size to keep it from doing that any more. Still, it's no biggie. If you have a better solution, go for it! Karen | Talk | contribs20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there some style manual entry on when ¼ is preferable to 1/4 and when the latter is preferable? Does it indicate any dependence on the subject matter (e.g. could one of them be preferable in a recipe while the other is preferred in some mathematical contexts, etc.)? Michael Hardy19:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed those changes, too. WP:MOSNUM#Numbers in words says this regarding fractions: “Fractions standing alone should be spelt out unless they occur in a percentage. If fractions are mixed with whole numbers, use numerals.” Elsewhere it says, “Use numerals in tables and infoboxes.” That’s not specifically about fractions, but I think it still applies.
In AP style, the fraction would be written out as one-fourth in body copy, or 1/4 in a table-like context, but never as ¼.
From what little I’ve observed of Chowbok’s recent series of edits, they are consistent with advice in the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., sections 14.44 through 14.46.
I wasn’t pleased with the edits, but I’ve softened a little since checking Chicago. It doesn’t state any preference. Above all, I think style needs to be consistent within an article (or group of closely related articles). Unless all the fractions in an article can be represented with the special characters, none should use the special characters. However, I would favor the treatment fractions receive in Vulgar fraction, which uses <sup> and <sub> with the fraction-bar character: 1⁄4.
Did you know that the Tahoma font doesn’t have the 1/3 and 2/3 characters? Firefox displays the plain three-character equivalents instead. --Rob Kennedy04:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
