Dear Curly Turkey/Archive, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Dear Curly Turkey/Archive, HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thank you for the kind thoughts and for all your consistently excellent work through the years. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Sammy Sneeze you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly Turkey, I noticed 4 or 5 days ago that you opened a review page for an article that I had nominated (Hidden Treasures (EP)), however, in the days since, I have heard nothing from you regarding the review or the article. Were you planning on communicating with me in any manor regarding this?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I've been waiting for you to say you've been through the article to make sure everything's got an online cite. Have you done that? Once you have, I can continue. Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I have been getting at is that I generally expect a degree of communication during these things, regardless of the content, or lack thereof, of the article in question. Can't say I've seen that here. Heck, you've have talked to Retrohead more about the article when he wasn't the one who nominated it! (No disrespect meant to you Retro). Additionally, I had left a few comments and made a few fixes (though definitely not everything wrong with the article) on the article, had you bothered to check. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
L1A1 FAL: Sorry about that. After your initial comments, I assumed you'd notify me when you got everything sourced, or at least after you'd dealt with those "Will look into"s—especially given that's exactly what I said in the opening to the review. Given how much hadn't been sourced, I assumed there'd be major enough changes to the content that I thought it would be best to wait until that was done before finishing the review. I contacted Retrohead because (a) he contacted me first and (b) I knew he had access to sources since he'd done the Megadeth FA. With no activity on the review page, it doen't show up on my watchlist to remind me to return. Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. So its just a misunderstanding then. Sorry for coming across in an irritated manor. I've had increasingly bad interactions with other editors and reviewers, and as a result I take exception to stuff increasingly easily anymore. I'm frustrated almost to the point of leaving to be honest. Back on topic, I assumed you had been keeping an eye on the review page, no big deal though. Probably not going to get to it tonight, but I'll revisit the so-far-listed issues on the page, fix what needs fixed and I'll get back to you shortly. As for the rest of the page, we can deal with it as it comes along.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that between myself and Retrohead, the initial issues previously pointed out have been addressed. If you could proceed to inspect the following paragraphs, that would be great--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly. I just wanted to leave a note of thanks for your efforts and review at the FAC for the AACS medallions article. I noticed your correction of the 'notes' template; I'll remember the way you did it in case I need to use those in future articles.-RHM22 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
… about the meltdown. Holidays, house guests, a visit to the ER and FAC. What can I say? Except I'm sorry you got in the line of fire. Btw - also, I cringed when I realized I'd jumped from cr to cy right over cu when idly posting xmas greetings while waiting for a delayed flight to arrive. So - better late than never - here's hoping you and yours have a wonderful 2015! Victoria (tk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—I've been waiting for the flurry of edits to die down before returning to the FAC. Hope your January will be a bit more fun (we've got an influenza case at home, but it hasn't got to me ... yet ...). Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It hit me unexpectedly hard at a bad time, but as they say, stuff happens. Anyway, I finally got a chance to review my files and think I'm finally finished at the FAC. Stay healthy! Victoria (tk) 02:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like octopus—it's so chewy. The rest of my family eats it frequently. I'll see what I can do, but I honestly don't know where I'd start. I can't believe someone found enough sources to make Black Thunder a GA. Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Octopus? I've seen on TV where people ate it live (!!!), but I don't think it's normally eaten raw. It's definitely cooked in takoyaki (the "yaki" means "cooked"). Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean sashimi. Sushi doesn't require raw fish—sometimes the fish is cooked (like with anago), and even more often there's no fishi in it at all (just vegetables or whatever). I'm on the fence with Je suis Charlie. At the moment, I think the two articles should be merged (rather than deleting one). Only time will tell if it really merits its own article. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership
Well, maybe ... Curly, you were supposed to nominate that turkey as a featured pic, preferably before is going down in the drain in the archives or you get blocked on more Jesus Charlie issues. I f you have a second free, maybe you could try? Do you need help? Hafspajen (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You put this: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:1 Wild Turkey.jpg in the box called Create new nominations, than fill in. It's a home run. Hafspajen (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why you deleted the RS-supported fact that she was identified as a suspect, here? Nor can I tell from your edit summary why you did so. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: The word "suspect" may not appear, but if "possible accomplice of Coulibaly, and is being sought by French police" doesn't make that clear, then Jesus Christ! If it makes you feel better, change "possible" to "suspected". Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "person of interest" and the like may be a possible accomplice who is sought by the police; they may be someone "involved" in a criminal investigation who is not suspected of committing the crime by the police. A "suspect" is a significantly higher level. It is a known person who the police have put into the category of people they officially suspect have considered a crime. They are different things. When you delete suspect, you delete something very material, in a section about the person. Epeefleche (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's immaterial now as I've restored the word "suspected", but when someone is sought as a possible accomplice to a crime there's no way to interpret that but as "suspect". Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a difference that matters in the context? It someone is being sought as an accomplice to a crime, is there a context in which that does not carry the technical meaning of "suspect"? This article isn't a court document, remember—we want it to be as readable as possible. Curly Turkey¡gobble!06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Certainly. Once can be "suspected" by the police, without having been declared by the police a (in her case, an "armed and dangerous" ...) suspect. We want it to be both readable and accurate and also to convey precisely, not in a vague way. Everybody suspected by the police is not a police-designated "suspect." The verbiage of The Independent is both readable and precise: "police named her as an "armed and dangerous" suspect". Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's finer a distinction than I'm able to comprehend, but I'll take your word for it. I'm likely not alone in finding that the wording appears redundant. Curly Turkey¡gobble!07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This may help. Every person who is accused of something at a trial and defends themselves is not a defendant -- the Plaintiff could be accused of something. Every person who the FBI very much wants is not an FBI Most Wanted. Etc. Epeefleche (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dolescum: The whole reason the lead is not required to have citations is because those citations must be in the body. Further, the lead is a summary (per MOS:LEAD) of the body—if you include something that in the summary that's not the thing being summarized then it's not a summary. This is also why the User:Ucucha/duplinks script doesn't register a link as a duplink when it appears for the first time in the body even though it already appears in the lead (install the script and then try it on, say, Ukiyo-e—you'll notice that Edo period appears once in the lead and again in the body, yet doesn't get highlighted as a duplink).
The link isn't my main reason for reverting CT, it's WP:SAWW. Your edit means that that specific text ('Islamic prophet') is now in the article twice after I specifically cleaned it up earlier. Note the policy: Once per article. Now are you going to keep reverting that text back into the article? Dolescum (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read WP:SAWW, and you're obviously misreading the spirit of the letter. The lead is a stand-alone summary of the article—you cannot summarize something that is not in the body of text being summarized. Notice WP:SAWW does not say "Once per article"—it says "when it is the first reference in an article". The article itself being the body, of which the lead is a stand-alone summary. Just think of how ridiculous this would be—a "Background" section detailing the offense of depicting Muhammad—the central inciting incident for the attack—but that does not once bother to state who this "Muhammad" guy is? Please take a moment to ponder this before any further hairsplitting. Curly Turkey¡gobble!13:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lede is a summary of the rest of the article, but it is also an introduction (as the relevant MOS page states) and itself a part of that article. As an introduction, it's obvious that it's the location to introduce users to who Muhammad is, given that the dude is mentioned there. I don't think I'm the one misreading things here, CT. Dolescum (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you simply ignored what I wrote? Or you seriously believe the "Background" section should just skip out on telling the reader who the central character in the controversy actually was? Perhaps we should leave the number of dead or the names of the shooters out of the body as well---it's all redundant once it's mentioned in the lead! Ditto the dates and locations of the attacks ... Try bringing it up with the MoS people and see if any of them take your WikiLawyering seriously. You're damaging the body by removing a key background detail. Curly Turkey¡gobble!13:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you simply refuse to address how a summary could summarize something that doesn't exist in the text behind summarized? Right, right, right: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oh, and "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Unless it's trivial (pronunciation keys, alternate spellings, etc), we simply don't put things in the lead that aren't in the article. Who Muhammad was is a key detail in the background of the article. I mean, Jesus Christ: "There is no need to repeatedly reframe the context for readers"—?!? Just what do you think the entire lead is, then? These details are framed once—in the body—and are summarized in the lead. You're not seriously going to dispute that, are you? If you are, your dispute is with Wikipedia, not me. Curly Turkey¡gobble!14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm sorry you're frustrated with me. I wish there was a way to send you cake over the internet by way of thanks for your civility. Dolescum (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have commented at this. I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former), so you may want to revisit it. I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to you and all reviewers and editors! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely get back to it, but it may not be right away—I'll have to refamiliarize myself with it, and it's a fairly long article on a topic over my head. Curly Turkey¡gobble!15:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued edits blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few Islamists is sickening. I assure you that if you keep this up you will find yourself topic-banned. Abductive (reasoning)07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coco (cartoonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Parisienne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Love It to Death you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
btw - where you have put that information now, I think is good - it flows better in the story of the magazine in a way - and in a way it made me think - -of course they will make cartoons that upset this religion at this point because its more visible - in the nineteenth century they would have been just focused on the catholic church and Calvinists or whatever. and it doesn't imply anything sinister about the religion - it just joins all the other religions for the secularist left to have a go at.Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved editor comment: Curly Turkey, I have read much of the discussions of the edit warring at this article, and I hope you will appreciate an outside editor's thoughts and advice. While I have noted you are very often on the right side of any discussion as you are an intelligent, experienced, and respected editor, you are very often aggressive and you normally fail to communicate "with a view to explicitly cooling things down" (as recommended in the "Handling of edit-warring behaviors" section of WP:EW. I believe you would fail any WP:RFA, for example, were you ever to attempt such an action, as they value this skill. In my opinion, you are respected for your accuracy, not your attitude, and it is surely possible to be respected for both. In myself, for example, I try to achieve this (but it is difficult, I know) for I have seen other editors do so. I hope you will consider these thoughts and recognise that I am not offering them in any desire to be right, but that I am offering them in kindness and thoughtfulness.
Before I go, I must of course express my shock at how satire was attacked by this terrible event. When I first heard the news, I thought immediately of the satire of both Harvey Kurtzman and Mad magazine, and I thought about how much you and I respect the publication of satire. Where satire is discussed in this article, I'm glad you are there to ensure the article gets it right. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably be more tactful, but I doubt it'd be any more effective with partisans who cover their ears, anyways. It's a good thing I have no aspirations towards adminship, eh? Curly Turkey¡gobble!19:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you would be more effective with them. Everyone is a person who doesn't want to get their feelings hurt. You've been around wise people who have won your respect, despite a difference of opinion, haven't you? Well. there you go.
I saw that; those are the times when we could choose to be even more annoyed or we could choose to just laugh. Sometimes something disguised as a trial is actually life becoming more ironically humorous and bearable! On that deletion discussion there was an editor who flatly stated he disagreed with what I said but also stated he respected the way I said it. I went to his talk page and told him I respected him as well, and we found something to agree about and left each other with mutual respect. That was a win; if I have to disagree with someone, that's the kind of disagreement I strive for. Prhartcom (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those things happen. I seem to remember some friction when you and I first came across each other ... Formerip has made it clear to me, though, that he's only interested in fillibustering the discussion. We're not having a "disagreement", he's simply generating a long list of baldfaced lies. I'm going to try to reboot the converstation at Charlie Hebdo shooting with a mind to changing the tone. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Hopefully your new tone will pleasantly surprise them and lead to something positive. Of course it won't work on everyone but I'll bet it will work on some. And the others could actually have a valid point too. Yes, the details between you and I have faded but I remember with shame some friction between us and have resolved to try to never let that kind of thing happen with anyone again. I even remember letting you down in some way. You probably weren't fishing but while I am thinking about it, please accept my apology for whatever that was. I'm sure I could have handled it in a calmer way. BTW, I finally got Masterful Marks: Cartoonists Who Have Changed The World in the mail today; will start reading it now and add it to Annie later. Prhartcom (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. I'm sorry that those editors are like that. As an interesting exercise, try to understand them. Get inside their minds and be them and try to figure out why they are like that. I think I can understand them. They are on the side of the vast majority of innocent Muslims and who can blame them. Unfortunately look where their compassion has lead: to illogical and unfair banning, unproductive and lazy refusal to offer counter proposals, and mean-spirited and immature rebellion. And that's just the dissenters going in the one direction. But understanding them is an important step: people want to be understood (you want to be understood, right?) It could lead to productivity and actually accomplishing a workable result. Try extending an olive branch. Ah well. I does seem a little hopeless at the moment. Imagine how the administrators feel. I appreciate how that one editor summed it up a few hours ago. But it really isn't that important to "win". There are lots of other areas to work on here. It's interesting to hear you talk about historic comics that I didn't know existed. There is so much out there, isn't there. Prhartcom (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're saying, but there's a big difference between an Abductive single-mindedly trying to "set the record straight" and a FormerIP whose motivation is to stir the pot—it's not like he can pass for believing the manure he shoveled on that discussion. A "difference of opinion" that wasn't. Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I honestly thought Gamebuster was going to come out against the content. 03:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right when referring to trolls, that's what they do, but even they could be motivated by a valid point sometimes. It's almost a game; treat people with the respect they crave, take the high road, and see what happens. It's exciting when it actually pays off: I believe the editor you mention was genuinely surprised when you stopped being predictably loud and started being unpredictably wise; you were not as two-dimensional as he realized he himself was behaving. Notice how he took a break to cool off and then came back with a compromise; we could all learn from that. I was glad to see you agree with his compromise, why wouldn't you, you're reasonable. Now let's get that new paragraph in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry about what happened. We convinced one of them to be part of a rational discussion and resolution but certainly did not convince two other hardcore editors. It's interesting what we can pick up from their writing style; their sentence structure and vocabulary is unimpressive. Here is what I have been able to pick up: M is an Algerian. He has been an editor for just over one year. He doesn't usually contribute to articles himself; he mostly only reverts material that others have written. Lately, almost the entirety of his contributions to Wikipedia are to this one Talk page. His motivation is obvious: he cares about Muslims. A is an American. He is a botanist/biologist. He has been an editor for just over five years. He touches on an impressively wide variety of Wikipedia activities. His motivation is less obvious; although he exhibits the hallmarks of a typical troll—emanating immaturity and acting the schoolyard bully—it probably stems simply from a blinding determination to always be right. He cares about no one. Other people are all fools, he says. This person is probably a huge geek.
I don't know about your stamina, but mine has exhausted. When the other person keeps saying "Nuh uh!", it's boring to repeatedly keep saying "Uh huh!" It's just not that important. What is important is that you yourself kept your head. You did not let lesser beings drag you down to their level. If you decide to walk away, you can know, as I have verified, that you would walk away with your dignity (and sanity) intact.
I have been in your position. Some were pretty difficult. Once, it was me against four others. They all "owned" the article, a BLP, and banded together to ensure the article of their hero was censored. I wanted to add some truth that had occurred in the subject's life, but they prevented it at all costs. A year later, I was able to add the information.
Cartoonists Who Changed The World is wonderful. I must admit, even though the book arrived, for some reason I did not open it until a few hours ago. It is all comics! Reading it now. Prhartcom (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. I bought an ebook version of Brian Evenson's Ed Vs. Yummy Fur, and I've barely touched it to finish off Ed the Happy Clown—one of the first articles I put serious effort into, and it's still quite far from finished. Meanwhile, I've spent the last week on anything but (not just the Charlie Hebdo stuff—I just put up Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary for GAN, and I think I'm close to doing the same for Art Spiegelman). It's a weird form of procrastination—I'm not actually putting off editing.
Frustrating situation. I know I can't report it because tehre are FormerIPs waiting in the wings to obscure things. I'm going to leave it until someone closes the RfC. There's no way an admin will close against (though they may rule "no consensus"). Curly Turkey¡gobble!07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh—maybe the Spiegelman article's not as close as I thought. I was just trying to clean up the references and a few other things, but now that I've taken a quick look at the prose, it's gonna need a pretty thorough copyediting. It's almost all my prose, but it's as if somebody else wrote it. Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your questions have been answered repeatedly, but YOUDIDNTHEARTHEM (again).
You have yet to make even the pretence of demonstrating WP:SYNTH. Why? Because there has been no SYNTH, of course.
You've been reported for your editwarring against both myself and PuffinSoc. It doesn't look good that the one supporting you is Abductive, who just got off his own 48hr block for the same thing. Curly Turkey¡gobble!05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turkey, can you provide an audio sample about some track of the album? I don't know the procedure, but I think the article would benefit since we don't have any illustrations from this period about the band. And about the music analysis of the title track, you think Master of Puppets (song) would be more appropriate for these information?--Retrohead (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can do an audio sample, but do you have a suggestion for what would be a good one? As for the adding info---which info did you think was better for the adding article? Curly Turkey¡gobble!19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, I haven't noticed we've got audio of that track. I'll contact you if I have something particular on mind. By the way, how's the article shaping? I still have some words to add, but so far, how does it look?--Retrohead (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't have the audio file; I just uploaded it. Give it a listen and let me know if you'd rather have it done differently.
The article certainly looks closer to comprehensive. When you're through with it, I think the lead will need a re-write to reflect what's in the body. The one thing that really sticks out at this point is it's still missing what I would consider sufficient background on both the band and thrash metal. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything important that's missing, but "Having its origin in the German Expressionist movement, the typically socialist work" almost sounds like it was typically socialist due to its German Expressionist origins. I don't think the "German Expressionism" bit is important enough to keep if you wanted to drop it. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:TheBookOfJimCover.jpg. 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).
Curly Turkey, do you own a copy of the book: Mike Edison (2011) Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! (which I see you once used as a reference in Harvey Kurtzman's Goodman Beaver) and if so, can you please consult it for references to Kurtzman's Little Annie Fanny? The book is not available online. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I definitely don't have it, and I don't even remember it—though obviously I was the one who added it, since I'm the one who created the page. I wonder how I got that page reference ... maybe it was accessible on Google Books at the time, but they've since removed that access? Sorry! Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks anyway. It's not at any of my usual local libraries either. Maybe it's not be the kind of title that appeals to librarians. I don't really much need it anyway; I believe my sourcing is now complete for that article. BTW, I scanned and wish I could show you portions of large panel Elder drew for Annie's 20th birthday party showing Kurtzman and Elder acting up in the corner, and with Hef in the middle saying "More nudity!" (and his executive editor turning around and saying, "More nudity!"). Prhartcom (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no forum where you could post it, maybe? I get the feeling that Dark Horse will be reprinting those Annie books. I don't have a source saying so out loud, but it looks like the plan is to reprint the three Kurtzman books that Kitchen Sink did in the '80s (Goodman Beaver, Hey Look!, and Jungle Book), and since they already have the rights to Annie (and Kitchen was involved with those), I'd be surprised if they didn't follow up with deluxe new Annie editions. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be a nice addition. One thing, though: I don't think the File:Annie-Fanny.png image contributes anything to the article that you can't get from the other two images of her, so it may fail the threshold of what constitutes Fair Use; on top of that, it's causing sandwiching with the infobox. I'd drop it. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And as for the image, I was afraid of that; I apparently knew that already. But that leaves a big blank spot though. What is this sandwiching? I don't see it; must not have the same browser or something as you. Prhartcom (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the usual copy editing, it always helps to have a second pair of eyes. As for this edit, a quote won't go over well in a caption? Oh and I meant to ask earlier, about the first line in this edit; I like to start my section with a pleasant introduction of some sort before getting right into it; is there really a problem with this sentence; perhaps it just needs to be rewritten instead of removed, and if so what would you suggest? Prhartcom (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; another caption in this article has a quote, but it is attributed in that caption. This one is attributed in the article body, and I had assumed that was enough. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to the first one: unattributed quotations are always a no-no. In this case, I don't think it's a good quote, anyways: it's someone's subjective opinion, but comes across as a statement of fact. It's the kind of quote that's appropriate in the context of a section that puts it in context along with other opinions, but singling it out like that gives it undue weight.
As to the second one, it's the kind of thing you'd commonly see in, say, magazine writing, but isn't really appropriate in an encyclopaedia—it's saying in many words what can be said in few. It's one thing to prefer a "zest"-y (but factual) wording to a flat one, but it's another thing to append "zest" to the text (even if factual). The sentence doesn't add any information to the article as the facts it contains are implied but what follows. It's not the kind of thing that would kill the article's chances at GA, but it's the kind of thing you'll find copyeditors nuking. Curly Turkey¡gobble!14:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that explanation. I do try, after valiantly trying to achieve every requirement for encyclopedic writing, to take it one step further within limits and try to bring some sort of feeling to my writing, especially in the first and last sentence of a paragraph or section. I have succeeded at this in the past but I have also missed the mark, as you can see. Perhaps I will try to add some sort of introductory sentence later and run the sentence by you. I really do appreciate that feedback. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A rule of thumb is: if you can cut out a word without losing readability, then you probably should. Encyclopaedic writing doesn't really lend itself to much "zest", so I'm proud of myself when I can sneak in the odd "vast voids which engorge themselves on the drowning bodies", but that's not really what encyclopaedic writing is about: it's about getting information across to readers succintly and clearly. The twists in the writing can't be at the expense of succintness and clarity. Curly Turkey¡gobble!17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a valiant effort you have attempted with the Comics article. I can think of no one better to bring such an intimidatingly large subject to GA and then probably FA. Good luck with it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see that at FA, but I'm not sure. It was a particularly difficult article to put together, because all the sources are garbage. Well, not all, but the ones that aren't garbage are limited in scope (Gabilliet's is rigorous and excellent—but only comprehensive as a historical perspective on American comics). Comics "scholarship" is an embarrassment—there are still comics "scholars" who claim straightfacedly that comics is an American invention. I feel like actually producing an FA-quality article on the subject would amount to borderline OR—because the "reliable sources" simply aren't reliable. Curly Turkey¡gobble!17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to crop it; thank-you Crisco 1492 for the suggestion. I assume you mean a head shot cropped from the original, positioned so as not to interfere with he references section, uploaded into Commons as a new filename, referring in the new description to the original image. I didn't know that an image shouldn't interfere with the references section or that it would be called out in a review. Now, as for the Multiple image template, no, I haven't ever tried it but I'm sure I could, and how would it help here? Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could have Hefner and Kurtzman side-by-side, which would mean no white space issues, and you wouldn't have to lose one of the images. The issue with images near the references section is the amount of whitespace it leaves; rather unattractive. I don't think we actually have codified any policies or guidelines about it (WP:WHITE is a help page), but if you can avoid it, why not? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turkey, I need some copyediting help of yours on Tomislav Kezarovski. Judgind by your "Je sius Charlie" tag on the top, you'll be interested in this one. Kezarovski is the only imprisoned journalist in Europe for a published article in a magazine (ironically, he is from my country).--Retrohead (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll provide sources, not a problem. If the English ones don't cover the entire case, I can use the Macedonian, which are overflowing with information. And thanks for the help, it's really appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done. The prose really wasn't too bad, but's it's a pretty unbalanced article—it's about virtually nothing but the arrest rather than the man himself. Hopefully you can flesh it out. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I can not credit the author because he is unknown, but whoever he is, I don't think he would mind using his work. I forgot to mention in the article, but that painting was a "gift" for the government, and kind of symbolizes the demonstrations.--Retrohead (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you that kind of thing will not go over well—not only is it a legal issue, but the cartoon isn't even mentioned in the article, so it would not qualify as Fair Use. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. On the positive side, his punishment was abolished. Now we wait the English-language media to report it, so we can update the article.--Retrohead (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharaku, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phaidon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Oh, I totally forgot about that—rather, I thought I'd run into the guy and that would jog my memory, but I never did run into him. I'll have to get on it. Even if I can't get one of him, I imagine I should be able to get one somewhere. There's a shop that sells shamisens etc not far from where I work, for example (and actually, that might be a better place to ask...). Keep on my case and you'll get your video. Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey (and anyone else who is talk page stalking), here are two grammar questions. Like you, I'm pretty good at grammar, but I am wondering about these; I haven't found the answers yet, only a gut feeling. Do you know?
Do we need the word "that" for this sentence, and is there a rule? "The person stated the thing was something" or "The person stated that the thing was something"
In the case of "stated" and "said", if the object is a direct quotation, then you cannot use "that":
Robert said, "It's only lines on paper, folks!"
If it's otherwise paraphrased, then "that" is prepended to it, although English being English, the "that" may be only implied:
Regarding your first bullet above: I tried to choose a sentence that would allow you to focus on what I was asking (Do I insert the word "that", or not?) and failed completely, as you thought that I was asking about MOS:QUOTE, which is way off the subject. Here is my question again; which of the two is correct: "He showed us the ring he purchased" or "He showed us the ring that he purchased"? Here it is again, which of the two is correct: "She decided he was right" or "She decided that he was right"? My gut feeling is the latter is correct in both cases. What do you think? Perhaps both the former and the latter are correct in both cases because the former is simply implying the word "that"; perhaps grammar rules allow either. Is this what you were trying to say in your second bullet above? If they're both correct, I'm just going to always insert the "that" as my gut tells me doing so is more acurate. Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear: a direct quotation is the direct object of "said" or "stated", in which case you cannot use "that". In the other examples you've given, both are correct, but the ones with "that" are "more correct"—the "that" can be dropped but is implied. So the sentences should be read as "He showed us the ring [that] he purchased" and "She decided [that] he was right". You can drop the word "that" in these cases but it remains ghost-like in the sentence. It's a peculiar feature of English. Do you speak Spanish or French? It's easier to understand if you do (those are languages in which you cannot drop the "that", so examples in those languages make it clear in English where a "that" has been dropped and where there was no "that" in the first place). Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I have known for a long time that we can't mess with quotations and I was never asking anything about them.) Thanks! I understand now, you have answered my question about the "that", actually, you confirmed that I was restating your explanation correctly, that both cases are correct, but that using the word "that" is more correct. Thanks again; I have been copy editing other editor's work lately and this kept coming up (they kept leaving the "that" out) and I knew you would have this knowledge. Yes, I did learn both of those languages in school at one point but I don't get to practice them any more, and hadn't thought about using their (more straightforward) grammar to try to answer my original question; you're right, that also helps, thanks. (My wife speaks fairly fluent French, I'm not that good.) Prhartcom (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I was talking about direct quotations, I meant it from a grammatical perspective rather than a MoS one. Maybe I was misunderstanding you: I keep seeing "So-and-so said that 'I think it sucks'" kind of writing, which is grammatically wrong (and grates against my ears). Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the "only" and the "still" go in these sentences, and is there a rule? "The thing was only noticed when" or "The thing was noticed only when". The other one: "He still was not suspected of doing the thing" or "He was still not suspected of doing the thing"
In the first example, I feel like "only" should go before "when" [so the latter case is correct]—if you drop "when" [from the first case] you get "The thing was only noticed" [so it is wrong]. You're not trying to emphasize the mere-ness of the noticing, but that it happened "only when" [as in the second case, which is right]. This is a very subtle thing in most cases, and of course in coversation both sentences will be parsed the same way by most listeners.
In the second example, I don't think it matters. I can think of ways you could intend its placement to have a different nuance, but I think such shades of nuance almost certainly would not be picked up by even a careful reader. Curly Turkey¡gobble!20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with me: I have inserted some additional explanation in brackets directly into to your statement on the first example in order to attempt to clarify what you are saying. Did I get it right? And I understand what you are saying in your statement on the second example. That helps; thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer is "yes". I don't think it's so much a "right vs wrong" thing as much as a "more right" kind of thing. "The thing was only noticed when" and "The thing was noticed only when" will be parsed identically in conversation, so it really comes down to hairsplitting (as a writer you should be prepared to split such hairs, though). Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for confirming that. This was one that I really struggled with and didn't really have a gut feeling about which case was "right", but I see now: simply try to isolate the phrase as you did, e.g. "only when", and it became clearer. Prhartcom (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. It definitely should not be removed from the body (it's quoted, attributed, and cited), but it's perhaps inappropriate for the image caption (WP:UNDUE—as it's the only image in the article, it draws undue attention to the craptacularity of the covers). Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but give me a couple of days. I'll have to do it when everyone's out of the house—all my FLACs are on the family desktop, and nobody but me will tolerate thrash in the house. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the AfD you have put "Oppose", but aren't these supposed to be either "Keep" or "Delete"? I think your meaning is obvious, but well, just pointing it out... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever closes it it supposed to read through the comments and decide on a consensus and not count !votes, so it shouldn't matter. Doubly, it won't matter as the nomination is obvious trolling and will be closed regardless because of it. I'll try to stick to proper protocol in the future. Curly Turkey¡gobble!14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorNextDoor (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly and I sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree. But I do think it's correct that Curly is hardworking. And note that somehow, despite 36,000 edits, sometimes in contentious areas, Curly had not been blocked before. A rate of one block (or fewer) per 36,000 edits in such areas suggests to me an editor who seeks to comply with the rules. I support a shortening of the block to either time served or 24 hours. Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a message that demonstrated his good faith in the first place, but the fact that MoorNextDoor has removed his promise to stop reverting things in the article (as "irrelevant") suggests perhaps he'll be digging in his heels. As he's assured himself of "being right", obviously there's no need to discuss things? Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Playboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yummy Fur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Oh, please, I don't want to wait out my block to see this taken care of—
Can someone please correct ISIL beheading incidents#Haruna Yukawa where it calls him[a] an "aid worker"—Yukawa was nothing like and "aid worker", and none of the four sources claim he was: he was war-obsessed and was trying to set up a private military contracting company. That's actually in the sources, so you don't have to track anything down to fix it. Thanks in advance! Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DAJF, for doing this. One thing: I don't think he was a "self-proclaimed" military contractor—my understanding was that he was pursuing setting up such a business—the BBC source used words it: "Haruna Yukawa, 42, was seized by militants in August after going to Syria to set up a private military contracting company, according to reports." Curly Turkey¡gobble!06:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was quite the vacation! Funny, I just got my hands on Graveyard, and still haven't gotten around to watching it (well, my wife insists I've seen it before, because it's always on TV, but I don't remember it). It'd be easy to source, I imagine. Curly Turkey¡gobble!12:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be surprised if it is... though they didn't have any Ghibli films on the flight. I'd have watched those. Greetings from Narita, where the sun is in my eyes and the saleclerks are giving me prices in dollars even though I'm paying in yen.
If you're interested, I think Dr. Blofeld would want to take part as well. The three of us would probably be able to handle that article well... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The themes part would be interesting: the common Western interpretation that the film is anti-war, vs. what the director apparently intended (a condemnation of 1980s Japanese youth culture which didn't recognize or value the sacrifices made by those in the war) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I imagine such an article would require less of the Japanese sources (I imagine the otaku community has documented the film fairly well in English), so how about I let you (and the Doctor?) work your magic on it first, and then I'll trawl through the libraries here to find anything interesting to add. It's probably not ideal to add stuff from Japanese sources that may already be available in English. Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Comics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really watch many movies, so not buying a Blu-Ray player was not decision that kept me up at night. What initially clinched it with me was the Region Codes—something that drove me nuts about DVDs: I'd buy a DVD in Canada of , say, The Wizard of Oz, and find I couldn't play it on a Japanese player. Why? I spent actual money on the player. I spent actual money on the disc. I wasn't about to pay even higher prices to be put through that horeshit with Blu-Ray.
Well, my son was on TV a little while back. The station was nice enough to send us a burned disc of the spot (about five minutes). YOu've probably guessed they sent a a Blu-Ray disc. So, under orders from The Boss, I bought us a DVD drive for the desktop. We've had Ubuntu on the desktop since 2007 (I've got Debian on my laptop). The Blu-Ray people aren't much into Linux—there are workarounds to get Blu-Ray to work, but none of them worked for me this weekend. There used to be (32-bit only) PowerDVD for Ubuntu, but that seems to have disappeared (yes, I would have paid for it). Nothing worked for me. I was about to reinstall Vista (still have the disc that came with the desktop—haven't even dualbooted since 2007, though), only to find out that Microsoft doesn't actually support Blu-Ray—you still have to buy separate software just to run Blu-Ray discs?!? I mean, Jesus Christ, Blu-Ray people—no wonder everyone just downloads!
I mean, I'm not even talking about commercial Blu-Ray discs here. I can't even use the drive to burn a data Blu-Ray disc to backup my photos. A drive that I paid hard money for onto a disc I paid hard money for to store photos I took with a camera I paid hard money for! YOU HAVE MY MONEY, BLU-RAY PEOPLE! I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON IT!Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have violence or horror or require much skill or eye-hand coordination; it's more of a thriller; think of it as a game "The Boss" would enjoy, as mine truly did. It's actually like watching a touching and exciting movie as you tilt the controller stick and cause the main character to go through the plot that is all pre-arranged for you. Hardcore gamers hated it because it wasn't a skill-based sport like Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto, or Call of Duty (I have no interest in those). The gameplay is fully described, I sure hope that section communicates to the reader. We actually bought our PlayStation 3 just for that one game (we don't play much but knew that game was right up our alley). The machines are inexpensive, now that a newer model has come out, and so is that game at this late stage. When we occasionally rent a Blu-Ray we watch it from there. BTW, congrats to your son for being on TV. Prhartcom (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't quite believing what I was reading. So ... it's a "game" with no actual "game" in it? The TV spot was nothing really special—just a human-interest piece that was broadcast in the middle of the night on ice hockey in Shizuoka. To put that in perspective: Shizuoka is sub-tropical, and it only really snows in the mountains. The boy only appears in the background a few times, but still, we wanted to send a copy to my parents (on DVD—they haven't been roped into this Blu-Ray scam yet). Curly Turkey¡gobble!05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like all the hardcore gamers. (Who sort of have a point.) No, it's a game, and really fun to play. Well, we liked it and so did millions of others. Here is something poignant that the creator said: Beyond: Two Souls#Legacy You just reminded me that my son was on TV when he was 3 years old when we lived in Canada. Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Not only did we live there, but after being around and loving so many Canadian people, I developed a lifelong tremendous respect for Canada. Whenever I meet someone from Canada nowadays, my estimation of them automatically goes up. Even Canadian traffic is polite. We lived in beautiful Vancouver, BC, where the ocean meets the mountains meets the forest meets the city, from 1996–1999. I would love to see your part of Canada; "Canada's New York", I heard. I can't even remember why he was on now. I just remember my wife went out and got an agent for him and headshots of him (seriously); which of course never led to anything. Prhartcom (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, Curly. I saw that the second sentence was cited, but not the one with the date. Secondarily, what with Don Markstein's passing, the Toonopedia website has sometimes gone down for weeks at a time, and it's may only be a matter of time before it's gone for good, so I've been archiving as many pages as I can before they're lost for good. (The Wayback Machine can't archive them; only Webcitation.org can). There are already so many ELs in that article, I figured it made sense to add it as a cite to the character here (since there's no separate article for it).
Pepso2 and Darkwarriorblake have helped with the archiving — there's a list of what we've saved so far here. But few of them have been integrated into articles since we've been concentrating on the archiving part. There's information in Toonopedia that appears virtually nowhere else on the Web, and in some cases barely in books! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First I've heard of that. And it's a larger issue than his personal desires — that's like an author trying to forbid libraries from preserving or loaning out his or her books. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If there is a way to archive a few pages from his remarkable work I think human knowledge needs us to do so, his wishes be damned. I hadn't tried to archive the one page I cited; I didn't think it would work. If our articles depend on his information then I think we should try to preserve it. His family has barely remembers to pay the web bill each year, for one thing. Prhartcom (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no law against a nonprofit organization archiving web pages, any more than there are laws against libraries archiving books. There's a big article in last week's New Yorker about the Wayback Machine that covers a lot of this ground in pretty good layman's terms.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking his intention was just to rightly protect the copyright of his work from plagiarists, not from us. The poor guy; I was reading about his final days after his stroke when he woke up in the hospital and learned he was not going to be able to continue his work. I'm sure he had planned to work indefinitely. Rest in peace, Don. Thanks to you, Tenebrae, for doing this archival work. Prhartcom (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Françoise Mouly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I restored to a version before your edit (instead of one even earlier which missed many improvements), sorry. Standard - it's not only one. The English translation is only a translation, not a title itself. Happy listening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Of course there were more than one, but it's a matter of grammar: in "The cantata shows elements which became standards" we're talking about standard elements—"standard" is an adjective here, and can't be pluralized. "Standard" as a pluralizable noun would refer to standard works, not elements—it would imply these elements have themselves become standard works. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 25 Images of a Man's Passion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 97198 -- 97198 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw your edit summary comment regarding the use of "in the hospital" in the Kenji Ekuan article. That difference in American English was new to me, so apologies if I changed it unnecessarily. To British English readers, the wording will be confusing, as "the" implies that the hospital was mentioned or described earlier in the text, and, as it wasn't, the reader will be left wondering "Eh? What hospital?" Anyway, I learned something new today, so thanks. --DAJF (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DAJF (talk·contribs) I know, it's one of those more irritating ENGVAR differences. The only reason I knew the BrEng wording was from watching endless Britcoms when I was a kid—"in hospital" sounds like broken English to the vast majority of NAmEng speakers. It's probably best in most cases to avoid it by using a different wording ("hospitalized" or whatever fits the case). Curly Turkey¡gobble!06:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am not very familiar with editing on Wikipedia. I have removed the photo which I agree broke the flow of the text. Thank you for pointing this out. May I ask you to please use a bold font for the Aftermath edit. I am simply trying to add some context to the Aftermath section as it is not evident from the article that the Porte de Vincennes shootings and hostage crisis a) occurred in Ile de France as the subsection suggest and b) there is no causation in the article. Clearly the hostage crisis and subsequent killings at the Hypercacher supermarket were related to Charlie Hebdo. May I please ask for your assistance with what I believe is a simple edit? Thank you. Feel free to email me at adam.blitzATcolumnist.com AB
I saw that. It was broken during the appearance on the main page (DYK) of an article I improved too. It was broken on the 4th, through the 7th–10th, and is broken now. The classic tool here is just a broken. Nothing wrong with Wikipedia's web server page counts (here). User talk:Henrik maintains the tool but does not normally answer messages on their Talk page. Aarg. Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yay. Thanks for the heads up and nice job on those stats. My DYK article got 4x the number of usual hits. The TFA today (only a few more minutes) is of (mostly) Midnightblueowl and also myself; those status should be available soon. What a day it was; I had to tell one guy WP:NOBLE. Prhartcom (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathize with him. Quite likely there's some source somewhere (likely in French) that gives this sort of context, but it can't just be grafted onto the article like that (and the wording veers into POV territory, but I wasn't about to say that to him—he's likely to misinterpret it as me implying there are two sides to the story or something). Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you deleting RS material? For example, that the attackers shot scores of bullets in the Copenhagen shooting? You've now deleted that twice. Without an appropriate reason. Please don't. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The article still mentions that police reported up to 200 bullets were fired. What do you seriously think your "scores of bullets" adds to the article? Do you seriously not understand what the word "spray" means? This writing is garbage. Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[I'm moving the below related parallel conversation here from my talkpage -- no sense saying everything twice in different places.]
You're not seriously going to start an edit war over garbage writing like this, are you? This kind of writing is incompetent. You are adding words without adding information. Please revert. Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have now repeatedly deleted RS-supported information. As mentioned on your talkpage. Without any appropriate reason. I will ask you to stop. Plus, of course the "seminar" was not shot at, but the people in attendance. Feel free to bring your assertion that it is better writing to say the "seminar" was shot at than the people in it to the talk page of the article -- the same with your deletion of RS-supported material, such as that they were sprayed with scores of bullets ... that is information. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done no such thing. The number of bullets the police reported is still in the article, and "spray" implies "scores of bullets". Your writing is redundant. Why are you not understanding this? Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you not understanding that you -- now twice -- insisted that the "seminar" was sprayed with bullets ... rather than the people in it ... and for some unknown reason think that is superior English? A seminar is not the same as the people attending a seminar -- it is a class or a meeting, not the people attending the seminar.
And this is where we talk about the shooting -- so this is where we should talk about what the shooting consisted of ... meaning how many bullets were fired. If someone added similar information elsewhere, feel free to move it here, where it belongs and where it is already RS-supported and in existence. Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a credible example of an English sentence in which one could open fire on a seminar and not target people.
Demosntrate a single example of information that I have removed that is not elsewhere in the article.
"If someone added similar information elsewhere, feel free to move it here, where it belongs and where it is already RS-supported and in existence.": This is a non sequitur. The number is quoted where police gave it. "Scores" is not a number, and is entirely redundant to "sprayed". It's like saying, "I kicked him in the head with my foot."Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You sign up for a seminar, you attend a seminar, and you shoot people attending a seminar.": I said : "Please provide a credible example of an English sentence in which one could open fire on a seminar and not target people." This doesn't even remotely demonstrate such a thing.
"I have never heard of the word "Demosntrate"—was this supposed to demonstrate a point, or simply your tendentiousness?
"Scores" is a number.: No, "200" is a number, and it's in the article. Only "a score" is twenty—"scores" is merely the larger cousin of "several"—a non-number. Not that it matters in the least—it does not express an idea that is not already contained in "sprayed". Curly Turkey¡gobble!06:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your last comment -- I'm uncertain why you have difficulty understanding that there is a substantive difference between "sprayed with bullets," and "sprayed with scores of bullets." The first example could contemplate, say ... 17 bullets. The second requires that there be at least 40. That's a material difference. Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Scores" can mean 40, or 39, or 43, or similar numbers hovering around 60, 80, 100, etc---it is a vague "number" just asare "several" and "dozens". "Sprayed" implies all of those numbers, and ththis is no less precise. "200" means "200". That's a number. It's also in the article already. Curly Turkey¡gobble!20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I believe I'm the "moron" in question. Just to let you know, the entire purpose of that particular edit was to correct the inaccuracy of describing the weapon used at the first shooting as an "automatic rifle", when there was nothing sourced to confirm that and when the audio from the attack pretty clearly refuted it. Subsequent edits removed my use of "several". No problem - I improved on the earlier text in one area; someone else improved on mine in another. Many edits since have changed that section substantially and it's even better now than it was before. I call that success, don't you? -- Hux (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hux: I want to apologize—partly I was in a pissy mood, and partly I was reverse-projecting (in my mind, you must have been a "moron" to Epeefleche for such a wording. I couldn't have expressed that more poorly). I'll say I appreciate your improving the accuracy of the article.
@Epeefleche: Here, let's just admit to each otehr that we've been a couple of pissy bitches and call a truce. We both edited in good faith, and were each offended at the other for accusations otherwise. Deal? Curly Turkey¡gobble!05:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly -- you may remember that when you were blocked recently, I was the editor who came to your defense. And suggested that your block be lifted early.
I'm surprised, especially given that, that your tone is as markedly uncivil and disrespectful as it has been. As one of many recent examples, you just now engaged in a personal attack, above in responding to me, by calling editor Hux a "moron".
Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and one of its five pillars. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively.
@Epeefleche: If civility is your concern, then you'll immediately be retracting your repeated hostile accusastions of removing sourced information from the article, right? And apologize for sniping at a typo of mine? And for starting an editwar, and for ignoring my direct questions? Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not taking to heart what I said.
I pointed to you just now calling an editor a moron. You can cull through your own edits, as well as see the views of others expressed about them even these past 48 hours, to see the incivility I am referring to.
You in reply have failed to focus on your incivility. You only sought to deflect. By turning the focus away from your incivility.
If you continue down this course, especially since you are inclined to do it with the one editor who came to your defense when you were recently blocked, it may prove problematic in the future. Blocks are meted out for incivility. I would urge you to reconsider your approach. Please take this as a gentle warning. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
FWIW, Curly, the block lengths in these situations are usually only relative to your own block history. That this was your second block for edit warring on this article is likely what led EdJohnston to impose the 72-hour block. A third block for edit warring will likely be at least a week, and at some point, a request to have you topic banned from the article could follow. As to the nature of the edit war - if the other party has been adding POV or other misleading content, please take it to ANI if they won't discuss their changes, accept existing consensus or insist on edit warring. Getting yourself frustrated and blocked doesn't help either you or the project. Particularly since you are such an excellent content contributor. Cheers! Resolute20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Andiar.rohnds has been caught evading his block and had his block extended to a week, so whatever. <rant>Any faith I had in ANI when I brought up a situation in which three groups were edit-warring against each other, involving perhaps a dozen editors. Some smartass who knew how to game the system convinced an admin not to bother even to look and that it was really a "Turkey-versus-the-world" situation, and then filibustered the thread so that nobody else would bother to look at it—with great success. A couple of other 3RR reports were ignored, and this one was looking like it was going to be ignored, too (some of the later reports had already been dealt with before this one closed). Let's just say my confidence in the system was (is) not high.</rant> Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the system does suck at times. Mostly, I just don't want to see you end up on a treadmill out of here. Not enough good Canadian content editors about! Resolute16:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latins (Italic tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Europeans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Eleven of the staff did not die. Of the twelve, Frédéric Boisseau was a building maintenance worker for Sodexo; there were two policemen killed; and one "guest" editor, who by the term "guest" obviously cannot be termed a "member of staff". So please revert back to either eleven people in the building (as well as the policeman outside), or eight members of staff. Ericoides (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No...it's just that the text sections are short, and that a left alignment would push around text as well as section headers in a bad way because of that. - Anonimski (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have to ask permission, unless there's some potential COI. Please go ahead! Most of the material is sourced to print-only sources, though, a couple of which are only in Japanese---this can make verification difficult if you spot any potential referencing issues. Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is potentially very bad: http://toonopedia.com/ shows up, but for the past day at least, none of the links go to any page. I hope it's only that the family just forgot to pay the ISP bill, and not that it's down for good — we've had such scares before. As a fellow fan of the site, I thought you'd want to know. Let's keep our fingers crossed for its return.... --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Tenebrae, I am a fan also; a check of ICANN's WHOIS database says that on 3 February 2015 the bill was paid for five whole years this time; it next expires 6 February 2020. The site is down currently for some reason; it cannot be related to the payment so this makes no sense. Hopefully it will be up in a few hours. RIP Don. Prhartcom (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been worried that would happen for a while. It's unfortunate, and it's one reason I've taken to preferring paper sources, which won't disappear. Curly Turkey¡gobble!20:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom, you are a whiz, and you bring good news to all of us who use of the work of that late comics scholar. Thanks! (And continued kudos to Curly Turkey for all his good work.) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much of a whiz that I can magically bring the site back up. Thankfully you, Tenebrae, have archived the entire website. Curly Turkey is right of course, and I wish Don had published one last book. I have chatted with the site's web hosting company (who of course refused me) and I have written an email to the proxy service that hides the site owners; hopefully they will forward my message to them. Crossing fingers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I only wish I had archived the whole site, but it's immense. A couple of other editors and I archived several pages, listed at User:Tenebrae/Toonopedia backup, and I've very slowly been integrating them into articles as appropriate. I'd gotten complacent and hadn't archived much in the last couple of years, thinking it was back to stay. More fool me. But, yes, thank goodness we have at least these bits of his priceless research saved. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, feel free, obviously, to integrate any of these links yourselves. I only ask you note "added to [this subject's] Wikipedia article" or "added to General Mills monster-themed breakfast cereals" or whatever, to help keep track and avoid duplicate efforts. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CT, how's things? I'm in the process of throwing Sakakibara Kenkichi up against the wall for GA assessment - I'm fairly happy with it, but one thing's bugging me - the Kurumazaka dojo. I understand this came orginally from the ja-wiki article, but I can't find any reference to a Tokyo suburb named Kurumazaka. I just wanted to check whether this could have been a mis-Romanization - there's a Kagurazaka that seems to fit the bill (it was near the castle where he worked, and had a history as an entertainment district so his bar and theatre projects would not have been out of place). Could 神楽坂 be conceivabley mis-transliterated as "Kurumazaka", or am I barking up the wrong tree here? Yunshui雲水13:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it was definitely 車坂, and a search for 車坂道場 turns up quite a few hits, most of which relate to Skakakibara. According to the article for the former Shitaya Ward (ja:下谷区—no en.wp article) the former Kurumazaka, Kami-Kurumazaka, and Shimo-Kurumazaka are now merged into Ueno and Higashi-Ueno. I haven't had any luck finding the exact location, and it looks like Jirōkichi Yamada moved it in 1904 to Hongō, so perhaps the Kurumazaka location hasn't been preserved. I'm sure there's a map somewhere, but I haven't had any luck. According to a blog, he opened the dojo in Kurumazaka in 1864, but I can't find a RS that confirms this (most of the J-books on Google Books are only snippet views at best). Curly Turkey¡gobble!20:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at The Exaltation of the Flower. I think it's poor form to add a citation needed tag to an article waiting for a GAR, particularly regarding a statement that does not exactly require a citation, namely the uncontested historical fact that Pharsalos is known for the Battle of Pharsalus. It seems quite silly, in fact, for two reasons: a) it is easily supported at the given links, and b) the following sentence notes that the archaeologist in question was "involved in an official mission to collect objects related to Caesar's campaigns". Well, that pretty much proves the point, after all, Julius Caesar defeated Pompey during the Great Roman Civil War at the Battle of Pharsalus. But let's look at the statement:
The town of Farsala was once named Pharsalos, and was known for the Battle of Pharsalus.
Is this any qualitatively different than saying
New York was once named New Amsterdam, and was named after the Duke of York.
Would a serious citation be needed for any of these statements?
If you are seriously concerned, you could have made a note on the talk page, but it seems quite extreme to demand a citation for a self-evident historical fact already associated with the very reason the archaeologist found the work in the first place. This seems to be similar to a "is the sky really blue" request. Of course, if there is a reason to question or challenge this, then by all means, ask the question on the talk page. Finally, can you give me a link to a guideline that supports your claim that "images should be placed after a title, not right before it"? The image was deliberately placed before the title to float it across two different sections, per common practice for the purpose of layout. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Placing an image just before a title is a common practice? I'm totally unfamiliar with it, and I've got nearly 5000 pages on my Watchlist. MOS:IMAGELOCATION states: "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image."
I don't know what to tell you, other than you are wrong. MOS:IMAGELOCATION has notthing whatsoever to do with the floating placement of an image. It has to do with the relevance of an image to a particular section. Those are two different concepts, so I don't know how you could have confused the two. But let's play your game. Your edit, in fact, violated MOS:IMAGELOCATION, as it removed the image of Farsala from the relevant background section where it is discussed. You removed it from the relevant section and placed it in the next section, which doesn't discuss Farsala. I'm surprised it didn't occur to you that the reason editors float images like this is because a) there isn't enough space in the relevant section, and b) it improves layout to float them between, so that the image hangs from the relevant section into the next, without forcing it and cramping the layout or the image size. There is no guideline or policy that prevents or forbids "hanging" or "floating" an image between sections. None. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "game" is that you claimed the image placement violated MOS:IMAGELOCATION. However, it was your edit that violated that guideline. The image was previously (and correctly) placed in the relevant section. The fact that it floated into the next is perfectly acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the {{cn}}—sorry, but it's hardly a "sky is blue" sort of statement, and throwing a {{cn}} on it is not "challenging" it per se—it's a request for verification. It should be easy enough to source. Leaving it unsourced really is not going to fly. Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. It is a 100% "the sky is blue" statement. Once again: "The town of Farsala was once named Pharsalos, and was known for the Battle of Pharsalus." This is easily verified by visiting the links. I added a source just now, for absolutely no good reason, considering that the following sourced statement explains that the archaeologist in question was there because he was looking for "objects related to Caesar's campaigns". I wonder, what could these campaigns be? Could it be...the Battle of Pharsalus? Already sourced in the following sentence, again, and another source wasn't needed, hence the reason I took issue with your unnecessary tagging. Is this material likely to be challenged per V? Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how an editor with your experience could think that could possibly be acceptable. "The sky is blue" doesn't require citation because the banal truth of that statement stares us in the face every day. The feats of long-dead people in faraway lands? Please take a moment to ponder that. Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, nothing about the statement was challenged or likely to be challenged. You simply added a citation needed tag for no reason. Was the idea that Farsala was once named Pharsalos in dispute? Or that it was known for the Battle of Pharsalus? Nope. That was precisely the reason the archaeologist was cited for being in the area looking for relics. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You never started a review, nor did you give any indication you were reviewing it. You added a citation tag for no reason, and anyone who does that without starting a review could put the review in jeopardy. If you wanted to start a review in the first place, there's a proper way of doing that. Even if you had simply said, "I'm reviewing this article, please add a cite for this reason", then that's another thing. There's a lack of communication here, and it's not coming from me. I can't tell what you are doing by watching smoke signals. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, right, right—out of the 4 million+ articles on Wikipedia, I just randomly chose yours to copyedit. I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck about what you think is the "proper way" to do anything, given how little you understand about Wikipedia basics. Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand just fine, and I'm allowed to disagree with you. It seems you aren't aware that many editors copyedit articles in the GAN queue without ever doing a review. Those who choose to do a review, OTOH, create the review page, which trips the bot flag and then notifies the nominator on their page. When this is done, the nominator then waits to comment. You seem to think this is unusual, but it's not. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"'New York was once named New Amsterdam, and was named after the Duke of York.' Would a serious citation be needed for any of these statements?": absolutely. You simply couldn't get away without a citation for such. Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact, you wouldn't need a citation for any of that in an article outside of New York, because they are uncontested facts already sourced in their parent articles and aren't likely to be challenged by anyone. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, per WP:V, the guiding policy on source requirements, there is nothing about any of these statements where their verifiability could be challenged. Are you challenging the notion that Farsala was once named Pharsalos, or that New York was once named New Amsterdam? Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need a citation? For the record, I've already added one, but it didn't need one. The statement is common knowledge and easy to verify with inline links. If I say, "The French Revolution began in 1789 and ended in 1799" in an article other than the French Revolution, do I need to source that statement? No, I do not. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Debido page.
Sorry, I don't know if there's a specific Talk page for the Debido page.
Anyway, I did not remove any citations (or certainly did not mean to; if I did it was in error). I left the notice that the Onsen book was included in a library of recommended reading, for example. I did remove reviews that only discussed how 'good' or 'bad' the publication was; if 'bad reviews' are not relevant, than neither are good reviews, and in any event this isn't a marketing page responsible for selling his publications.
GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed for your comprehensive scrub and polish of the above. Much improved and much appreciated. And then I saw your equally comprehensive comments at FAC. Really excellent suggestions which I saw address as soon as possible. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Curly Turkey, I'm hoping that we've now addressed the outstanding concerns re. the above. Would you kindly let me know on the FAC page if we haven't. In the event that there's nothing outstanding, your support would be very much appreciated. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate your Support for the article. Your comments and suggestions have greatly improved it. Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but I have to say I was a little surprised that both of you came to my talk page asking if I was going to support. I don't care myself, but generally that kind of thing's frowned upon—I've seen the coordinators tell the nominators not to do that. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is Tenniel's cartoon - representing 'Crime' as a result of the socio-economic neglect of London's slums - pertinent to Priest's "The Ripper"? Keri (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the name of the original illustration is just "Nemesis of Neglect"; that some random user of Wikipedia has chosen to add the prefix "Jack-the-Ripper" is irrelevant. I'm not going to edit war over it, but its use strikes me as pretty lazy shorthand. Keri (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is another example of lazy thinking. The second link is correct: the cartoon was inspired by a letter to The Times, which appeared on page 11 of the 18 September 1888 issue. The letter is a polemic against the urban, moral and social decay of the slums of London, eg "We have far too long been content to know that within a walk of palaces and mansions... there have existed tens of thousands of our fellow creatures begotten and reared in an atmosphere of godless brutality, a species of human sewage, the very drainage of the vilest production of ordinary vice; such sewage ever on the increase, and in its increase forever developing fresh depths of degradation..." The crimes of the slums - all crimes of the slums - the correspondent asserted, were "the means of affording to us a warning it will be at our extreme peril to neglect." Tenniel's cartoon is an allegory, not a picture of "The Ripper". Keri (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Political"? Say what? Clearly, this discussion has run its course. You seem unable to grasp Tenniel's use of personification of an abstract idea, and I can't be bothered trying to explain that any longer. Have a nice day. Keri (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Curley Turkey" is that your gangsta name or just simply a euphemism for your penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.132.48 (talk • contribs)
I see you've now used up the stock of comebacks you've built up in your twelve long years. Enjoy the rest of your "life outside of Wikipedia" at 4chan. Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this page is is for discussing my penis, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep on topic.
... but seriously, yes, one of the points was an error on my behalf, but the other (the footnote) really needs to be dealt with. Other than that I'm ready to support. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have replied to your suggestions and concerns at Norodom Chakrapong's GAN. Feel free to take a look and see if it maybe passed or merits further improvements. Apologies for the delay in replying. Mr Tan (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I have addressed and replied to the small number suggestions that you have posted on Chakrapong's GAN. At this stage I believe that it maybe cleared for promotion? :) Let me know if there still are additional issues to be addressed. You may do a review of Norodom Ranariddh if you wish, but please bear with me and don't close/fail the review as yet if I can't get back to you very quickly. Thanks and cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Curly. I looked for「八ヶ夕」 and 「六ヶ跡」on the web, but couldn't find anything. Purely as a guess, I would say やつがゆう and むつがせき, but I guess it's actually "don't know".
One thing I noticed in the Utagawa Toyoharu article is that the captions for two of the pictures in the Four Arts gallery seem to be switched. The one labeled Painting shows them Playing Go, and vice versa. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I think I reordered them when I noticed I had them out of order, but forget to moved the captions with them.
Those are the readings I figured, but I couldn't confirm it on the web or in any of my dictionaries. Educated guesses with kanji always seem to come back to bite me. I just wanted to include a list of Toyoharu's series that I found in 浮世絵芸術. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have switched them myself but it seems the file names also need to be switched. If that can be done I'll create a category for them on Commons. Just did that for the first time yesterday (for the picture in Nogawa Park). – Margin1522 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your lovely exquisite recent edits. Wikipedia warmly and from all its hart appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Sculptor (comics), you added a silly link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, though people using Turkey as usernames often do that anyway; since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Give flowers to bot, and read the FAQ • Send your flowers to the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article My War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Hafspajen's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
They're floats in a festival called the Shiohi Matsuri ("Low-tide Festival") in Aichi Prefecture. Aichi's right next to Shizuoka, where I live, but I've never heard of the festival. Apparently it has been held for at least 300 years, and celebrates the landing there of Jinmu, the legendary first Emperor of Japan, who is also a god and is the object of worship at the local shrine (Shinto whorships a plethora of gods, and each shrine is dedicated to a different one). The tall structures are called dashi—they're floats common in Japanese festivals, although these are particularly tall ones (at least in my experience, but most of the festivals I've seen have been in Shizuoka). Sometimes the floats are on wheels, and sometimes they are carried, as these ones are (I've helped carry one of those things before—when you've got a lot of people, it's not as heavy as you would imagine). Apparently, the ones in these pictures have puppets performances on them. Here's a wall of pictures from the festival (first of two pages), and here's the ja.wp page on it. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank very much you for your recent edits. Wikipedia indeed appreciates your help very very much. We noticed though that when you edited Eightball (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rally rally. You really are such a flirt! Such links are almost always unintended, but since you have been caught flirting with our bots, we can't really remain unsuspicious. a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be unable to explain something that seems simple to me, about the translation of the closing hymn, and I don't want to try a third time in the nom. I translated the stanza above the poem, did you see? Later - on your request - I added the poetic translation which, however, has a different meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried specifically to compare 3 items which are translated differently, but have the problem that I don't know grammatical terms well enough ;) - repeating one item: "lehr uns" is "may teach us", not "teaches us" (which would be "lehrt uns"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is "lehr" in the subjunctive? I don't know how the subjunctive works in German, but perhaps it could translate to "That the Holy Spirit ... teach us"? Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean, I don't know what "subjunctive" is, and I would not have known the subjunctive of teach. If it is what I think it is, the translation is good! ("lehr" is poetically short for "lehre") Anyway: it's something that is not yet true but hoped and prayed for to become true, - like collaboration became true in a sad case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've been misunderstanding all along. I thought the translation was yours, and that you were worried if you'd done it right. I notice the source you cite (and a bunch of others I can see online) use "lehrt uns" rather than "lehr uns". You might want to change it to one that uses "lehr uns". Curly Turkey¡gobble!07:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look what I found! It has "lehr uns"—and another English translation: "His Word, His Baptism, His Supper / Serve to protect us from all disaster; / May the Holy Spirit teach us / To rely upon this in faith". I think the "May ... teach us" translation gets across what you were saying. Curly Turkey¡gobble!07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I never looked at the German, knowing the song from memory! - Yes, will use what you found. Hymn writer and song will get an article soon, modelled after Gesius, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case you have time, I just noticed that prose issues were found in Maria Radner, sad story, on the Main page and yesterday made GA, - I have a rehearsal, also don't feel like the ideal person to fix English prose ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Issues were added to the GA review today, which is transcluded to the talk. - Congrats to your latest FA, - what a title! (see also, spares me to repeat all the deaths) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sad Wings of Destiny you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that someone deletes your talkpast post deliberately instead of through an edit conflict is a pretty serious act of bad faith CT. And calling someones extended arguments that you are too lazy too read "posturing" makes any further intent at communication futile.·maunus · snunɐɯ·14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've demonstrated your bad faith about as clearly as you could have, Maunus: you know perfectly well I've read through the article, so how else is one to interpret your claims that I haven't? The ferociousness of your opposition even to allowing discussion of suggested changes to the article is beyond all comprehension. Curly Turkey¡gobble!20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have now refactored my comments twice. Once reinserting a comment that I had made and then removed because I didnt wish to engage you further, and now removing a comment of mine that you didnt like. Don't do that. You have no right to do that. I deleted your comment originally by mistake in an editconflict, you are clearly doing it on purpose. I also have had no bad faith against you until recently, I was merely extremely upset at your total lack of respect for other peoples work and expertise, and your arrogance in arguing for severe cuttings of content that cost me and several other editors a month of hard work, without having even tried to understand why we wrote the article the way we did. Yes, I was offended and insulted by your arrogance and lack of respect. Yes I reacted badly because I am in a burnout phase. But you did absolutely nothing at any point to de-escalate the conflict. To the contrary you systematically responded only to the irritated tone and never to the substantial arguments I made. You are just as much a "troll" as I am in this case. So get of that high horse as the civil and offended innocent editor. If you want to engage seriously and substantially with arguments on how to actually improve the article while showing respect for other people's work and expertise I will be more than willing to lay aside this anger that I have towards you right now. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, get off it—the "conflict" has been entirely one-sided. Your response to the mere idea of reducing th elength of the article has been nothing but contempt and hostility, and the comment I reverted is pure trolling by any definition of the word. Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As will be obvious to anyone who reads this exchange it is you are the asshole who trolled a GA review with contempt arrogance and hostility and you got served in kind.172.0.128.110 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently opened the 2nd FAC for the article. The article had failed its first FAC due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, which were resolved in the article's 2nd peer review. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments regarding prose and punctuation issues, if any are found. Thanks. — Ssven2Speak 2 me14:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destiny (wordless novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Say, you offered a helpful drive-by suggestion on the Bazy Tankersley FAC? I have three supports now, but I think I need five (?) Care to pop over and offer an eval on the FAC? (If you have something pending, I'd be glad to reciprocate). Montanabw(talk)20:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you needed five, I think only one of my FAs would ever have passed! There's no set number (it's up to the discretion of the coordinators), but the rule of thumb is three, so you should be fine. Not blowing you off, but I actually have things to do this weekend, and I've only been coming to WP when I need a break (and even then, more often than I should). Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You and me both. Montana, if it's been stalled for a bit, it's probably because you're missing something. I don't see a media review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged Nikkimaria today, is she the only person doing image reviews? Curly Turkey, thanks for your review, I answered your questions, probably fixed about half and had questions on the others - though the same question for several. Montanabw(talk)02:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are plenty of people who do image reviews—I've done some, and Crisco there seems to do them pretty frequently (he knows a thing or two about images). Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I do. Right now I'm out of town and I wouldn't trust this connection with image reviews... rather too slow. When I get back, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back atcha, I have three of the four and a pretty good argument for the other. And your point is well-taken with a good link for my own review. Not that I agree 100%, but 75% ain't bad for the likes of me! :-D Montanabw(talk)04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly, your name has been invoked (hopefully in error) as a supporter of the {{ill}} template in FACs ... you'll get an idea of my opinion from the discussion. Any thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pony!
Congratulations! For your assistance in reviewing Bazy Tankersley at FAC, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk)19:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.
I'm sure a bot is going to come by and repeat everything I say, but in a far dryer fashion. I've reviewed this article for GA, and found so many problems that it might take you three whole minutes to resolve. Once you relieve yourself of this burden, I will be happy to pass the article. Cheers! Resolute00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I guess I didn't realize the other article was there. "(comics)" is supposed to be the default dab, so an article shouldn't be at "(graphic novel)" or whatever unless it needs further disambiguation (which it does in this case). Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I offered to truncate this meaningless discussion. If you insist on continuing, I will also. You have repeatedly called me a liar based on twisting my words and faulty logic. Of course I will defend myself. Boghog (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You "offered" no more than to "allow" me to let your lies stand. If you want to end it, end it---which will require an end to your lies. Notice how none of the other deprecators are having these issues? This is because they don't resort to lying and gaming the system the way you do. Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of posts may have not as clear as they could have been, but in no cases have I ever lied. Again, please assume good faith and please be civil. Boghog (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with clarity. I assumed good faith with your first misleading post, and removed it as an error. Reverting the removal after becoming aware of it was the first clear act of bad faith. Refusing to allow the clearly inappropriate discussion to be collapsed---twice---the next. Aggressively continuing the discussion issue the collapse made it clear you were going to pursue your bad faith to the bitter end. Your lies at cite sign about points that were supposedly "dismissed" (and were empirically were not) were icing on the cake. Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has everything to do with clarity. Your accusations that I lied are based on overly literal interpretations. Furthermore it is very clear that I am assuming good faith and your are not. In the example that you raised above, all I said was "yup" and then in my next post I apologized when I said Sorry, I thought you were opening parallel threads. Please assume good faith.
I have already demonstrated good faith for apologized for the error I made. Now it is time for you to demonstrate good faith and apologize for your error. Boghog (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed good faith with your first misleading post, and removed it as an error – Even if it contained an error, it is never acceptable to edit, much less delete someone else's comments on a talk page unless they are libelous or threatening. My post was neither. It was a simple mistake. The proper way to handle a simple mistake is to politely point it out, not to delete it. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I again collapsed the extended discussions on Template talk:Cite isbn because they contain borderline libelous accusations (i.e., dubious claims of lying). If even if these claims were true, how do they further your position? These extended discussions have become unnecessarily contentious, distracting and will drive away other editors. Please also note that in both cases, I let you have the "last uncollapsed word". We need to keep the discussion on a higher level. Boghog (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you politely on your talk page to remove your misleading comment from the inappropriate location. Not only did you refuse, you dug in your heels, reverted attempts twice to collapse it, and continued with your aggressive filibustering outside the collapse. That is not the behaviour pof someone acting in good faith. Where I've accused you of lying stands---it is not a matter of interpretation, it is a clear-cut demonstrable lie. Curly Turkey¡gobble!13:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Sim's Judenhass (2008) now in the Public Domain
I can't say I got anything out of Judenhass–lightweight yet heavy-handed, and really not in the least insightful. On top of that, we have the greatest letterer who ever lived resorting to ugly digital fonts—I thought Sim hated computers?!? Art Spiegelman calls this stuff "Holokitsch"—and I don't think it's professional jealousy. This thing gave me headaches, but I made myself read through it a second time after Sim announced he was putting it in the Public Domain.
The art is in Sim's "new" photorealistic style, which I don't hate but neither do I like. The text is very Sim—a manneristic style I admired when I was fourteen, but which has long since come to grate against my mind's ears. The book makes more sense as a document of Sim's self-isolating worldview than anything else, although that's not likely obvious if you haven't read much Sim.
No, he's put them up for download in .cbz and a .pdf, and these are from the .cbz. If I had a paper copy I might scan them, although Sim has kept religiously to printing on ugly grey newsprint, long after the rest of the industry has switched to decent paper. (I sold off most of my Sim floppies years ago—I only kept a few things that haven't been reprinted, and an issue of Cerebus that I had a letter printed in) Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although, now that I think of it, there are probably torrents or other downloads out there that would now be legal and might be higher-res. Scanned off crappy paper, of course. Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The JPGs from which he made the PDF/CBZ. Guess not; all I got from the CBZ was the same file you uploaded. I'm uploading the PDF, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that Sim's the kind of guy who might donate higher-res scans if asked. I don't think I'm the right guy to ask, though, as I just finished slagging the work. Factoid: he announced long ago that he's donating his entire œuvre to the public domain upon his death. Curly Turkey¡gobble!10:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's right, and if you want to correspond with him you have to sign his petition saying you believe he's not a misogynist first. Chester Brown refused to sign it, so Sim broke off their friendship. Curly Turkey¡gobble!11:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replied implicitly to your recent edit and question posed in Edit summary with this edit of my own. I thought you had a good point as to scale in the intro but that you'd overdone the cut a bit. I'm open to adjustments or dialogue or -- hopefully congenial -- contest.
With a brief glimpse of your page intro here you may also be interested in my first, earlier-today edit to the page. Again I'm open to exchange.
Swliv: There are a number of issues with the reference to the film. Ondaatje was a household name in Canada before the film came out—I was assigned The English Patient in high school (circa 1993–94?). Placing the mention of the film there makes it seem as if his claim to fame is the film. It's not. On top of that is the WP:PEACOCK wording "award-winning", which is not an appropriate description on Wikipedia. It is not an award-winning film; it is a film that won an award, and the award-winning is both tangential and irrelevant to Ondaatje's article—at least in the first paragraph of the lead, which should be about his achievements—which is, after all, what readers are looking for when they type "Michael Ondaatje" into the search box. As it is now, almost half of the lead is now dominated by that film.
You didn't reassess scale per se in intro (it was down to less that a quarter, my rough est.) but I took out the offending phrase (while I think/work maybe further on your excoriation of it at least) and do appreciate your attention/further background. As to fame-claim, 'the writer whose book became The English Patient' is certainly for many in the world the beginning and end of potential author-awareness, I'd maybe say. And that's 'not that bad'; 'better than many'; et c. While Wiki is not out of course to pander to the limited-exposure Hollywood-or-wherever-only encyclopedia readership solely, I also feel it's worth not turning our back on that readership completely (as you did in your wholesale cut); in the interests of inclusivity and outreach. Cheers. 14:37.
Ps This page is getting big to use on mobile cellular at least. I worked out a rudimentary Archive on my User talk page a while back. It's better than tossing it, I think; Wiki saves it anyway as it ought, I think. Swliv (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Need to get a portfolio ready . Though I must say, if I do finish a doctorate, it would be funny to have a photographer with a Ph.D. in literature. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I was reviewing your FAC The Playboy, I kept noticing "Archived from the original..." in the refs. Would you be kind to an old buffer and explain the mechanics of this? Despite my senescence I understand why you do it, but the how is a bit more elusive. A short tutorial would be most gratefully received, here or on my talk page or wherever you might be kind enough to deliver it. Best, Tim riley talk15:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, though, that there are websites that disallow archiving: you have to check that the page has actually been archived. Sometimes the "archived" page is a restricted access message. Curly Turkey¡gobble!16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what it says, obviously you are free to restore the repetition of the article title, but it seems self-evident to me that a subspecies table is referring to the species the article is about, rather than any other animal. It's also inconsistent when we don't do that in section headings or image captions unless I'm wrong on those too... I'll leave it with you to decide whether the current version of the headings is too unclear, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ukiyo-e may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
merchants had developed. These ''{{transl|ja|machishū}}''{{efn|{{nihongo||町衆|{{illm|machishū]]|ja|町衆}} }} }} allied themselves with the court and had power over local communities; their
Really impressive work on this article. It's one of the unique pleasures of editing Wikipedia to come back after an absence and see an article that you started expanded tenfold. Thank you. Lithoderm06:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are very awesome, thank you so much. I've now dealt with pretty much all of the issues you raised. Much obliged! Yunshui雲水11:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly, "Ukiyo-e painting" in sensu stricto is "Ukiyo painting painting". Being a gnome of long standing, I've looked around for some re-directs that reflect the redundancy. And have found... bupkis.
That will not stop me from calling an ATM machine an "ATM machine", despite the redundant redundancy.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's a redundancy, you'll have to blame the Japanese, because the translation is of nikuhitsu ukiyo-e. Just to split that hair a little finer, though: I know your dictionary lists "painting" as a valid translation of e (because it's how you would translate, say, Mone no e "Monet's painting"), but it really just means "non-photographic picture" (""Monet's picture"). And I just realized the Japanese nikuhitsu ukiyo-e page links to nikuhitsuga—a term which could technically be used with non-ukiyo-e painting, but in practice isn't. For some reason the Japanese page explains it using English terms ("painting", "print") even though they're all Japanese terms for a Japanese artform ... To make things more confusing, the translate kaiga as "painting", and then link to the kaiga page, which opens with a children's crayon drawing. Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Template:Other uses includes the text "For other uses, see Other uses (disambiguation)". What the actual fuck is going on these what the actual fuck recursively redundant recursive redundancies? Shirt58 aka --Shirt58 aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:ChesterBrownForeshortenedInEmbarrasment.jpg. 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).
Hi Curly Turkey, hope you are well. Interesting news about the Hergé Foundation (Moulinsart) came out yesterday. Read the section "Rights issue" in that article. This is bad news for Nick and Fanny Rodwell (whom the Tintin community has never much liked). I will keep watching for further developments. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Dramatic. I'm not sure it's good news, unless you just hate Nick and Danny Rodwell. I was hoping he'd signed over the copyrights, in which case we'd start seeing Tintin books coming into the public domain sooner, but it looks like it's only the publishing rights. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting part is that something new actually happened in l'monde de Tintin. Being a Tintin fan makes me essentially a history buff. I'm just wondering who that anonymous Tintin expert is ... Prhartcom (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Koyama Press requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. FiddleFaddle07:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turkey, how are you? The reason I'm calling you is that I need some advice what should I improve on Kill 'Em All. I've re-written in from scratch, but I'd like to hear second opinion on what might be missing or needs to be corrected. Appreciate your time.--Retrohead (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to do it, and if nobody else does I probably will eventually (that and the very sadly underappreciated Easy Action, which I think is every bit as good as Love It to Death and Billion Dollar Babies). I don't expect to get to it soon, though—too many artcles on my to-do list. Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turk, I don't mean to rush you, but can you do it by the end of the week? If you're not available, I can ask someone else in the meantime.--Retrohead (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's done. Frustrating though, because the file shows up as 30s both in VLC and when I check the "Properties" on my system, and the cut version shows up there as 29s. I cut less than half a second, though, so it ends up sounding pretty much the same. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Seth (1996) It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken (page 124 panel 4).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Seth (1996) It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken (page 124 panel 4).jpg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Seth (1996) It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken (page 124 panel 5).jpg. 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).
I might have to put that off until later. As soon as my kids are done watching SpongeBob I'm giving my Dad a Father's Day call and then we're going out. I'll squeeze in what I can until then. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today, there are still forest Sami cultures present in the woods in Norrbotten and in Malå in Västerbotten: the source for this was published in 1952—hardly "today". Also, it says they still exist today, but the lead says the "were a Sami people". Which is correct? Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
De säges vara granlappar som utgöra skatt om året bland vildvaror /,/ fiskeskatt som är gäddor, sik, abborre. Men de andra som ingen fisk ränta förmältes i årliga längden kallas fjällappar, havande det namnet därav att de bo uppe i fjällen uti bergsskrevor, och komma till inga sjöar med mindre deras nabor granlapparna vele godvilligt efterlåta dem fiska med sig. ("It is said that granlappar should pay taxes for their hunting and fishing.")
For example, ten forest Sami villages near the town of Vittangi used the same name.: What is this an example of? And why would they have the same name? Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. --TL22 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, you are absolutely on point in the red link debate. I couldn't agree with you more. May I buy you a beer? --Lockley (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turkey, is it necessary the article to tell that Burton's band Agents of Misfortune featured future Faith No More guitarist Jim Martin and the sentence "Ulrich thought Kill 'Em All was a good name, and Zazula agreed."?--Retrohead (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your suggestion and thanks to the IP who added content. I've copyedited his writing a bit, and think it looks good now.--Retrohead (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CT. I've been following the RFC at WT:FAC recently, and I'm starting to think that perhaps I'm going about this FAC thing the wrong way. Is there precedent for the sort of canvassing that's being suggested there? I'm considering adding links to the talkpages of interested WikiProjects to try and get some more activity on the Hu Zhengyan FA discussion, but it feels a bit - I dunno - sordid? Desperate? Beggarly? I would appreciate the opinion of someone more well-versed in FA protocols than me before doing so... Yunshui雲水13:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten in the habit of notifying all WikiProjects an article is tagged with when I put up an FAC. I understand the "beggarly" feeling, but at the same time, why would you want to hide the fact that a Project's article is up from the people most likely to be interested in having their say? Curly Turkey¡gobble!13:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get that but, your language in that edit summary and now here is just not appropriate, if you're talking about yourself or not. You have a tendency to come off uncivil and aggressive in your comments and edit summaries as it is, but please try to restrain yourself.— TAnthonyTalk23:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I apologize for jumping to that conclusion, but come on, you know very well that edit summaries like that and the f-word on your talk page just make you look bad, and are ammo for people trying to get you in trouble. It's not worth it.— TAnthonyTalk23:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If people would learn some empathy, it wouldn't have to be. If they'd think "Oh, I'm upsetting him/her. Better not push anymore" rather than "Awesome, that **** said **** *** ** **** ************* *******, *** *******. I'm going to cause some **** at ANI and get that ******* blocked forever." then we'd reduce drama levels on-wiki by half, or more. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you mean well by that comment, but I don't subscribe to it: one of the earliest tustles I got into on WP was when I used the word "whine"—turns out the other editor was female (with a username that wasn't obviously female), and interpreted it as a sexist remark (and I don't entirely blame her—it's not like such intentional aggressions don't exist). We're never going to agree where to draw the line, and context makes for moving targets anyways. For me, anyone who's going to get upset at a stray "fuck" should take it up with a professional, not ANI. Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See that only now. For 1971 it's too late, the pictured poster is of 2014, - I guess it will not be played much in countries other than German-speaking, but this was Cyprus. The play also features that the "old farmer" (as the DYK termed it, not by me) impregnates a minor and ends with her going in labour. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As in, do these "shows" actually run on Japanese TV? Some of them actually look like they might, but that "Sing Karaoke While Getting A Handjob" definitely isn't—it was going around on Facebook and someone found out it was just porn done up to look like a regular TV show. It appears that #1 at least is for real—but on satellite TV, not over-the-air. I hardly ever watch TV (and I rarely stay up past midnight), but I've seen after-hours stuff—even over the air—that would blow you away (not actual porn, but stuff that makes some of those shows look plausible). Curly Turkey¡gobble!20:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is... frightening... to think of what could possibly blow a veteran editor away. But then, knowing the depths of humanity's depravity, it's not surprising. I'd have thought number 1 to be a porn, to be quite honest... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "blow you away" in the sense that it'd be hard to imagine some of this stuff on over-the-air TV anywhere else in the world, not necessarily in the sense of "Oh my God! I can't believe there are people in the world who would ..." For that stuff, you go to the J-porn section. dig around the internet for J-porn. Edited when I realized how 20th-century that made me sound.Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd comment on how we usually use German porn for such jokes, but then realized that (as per our previous discussions) there is such a thing as "live action La Blue Girl". There are clearly things on this earth not meant for mortal eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I tell you that the first J-porn I ever saw—and I mean the very first, before I'd even seen so much as a picture of a Japanese nipple—was Return of the Overfiend? I'd just gotten a membership at a place that rented out anime (back when we still called in "Japanimation"), and I was still mostly unfamiliar with that stuff, so I asked the owner to recommend some. He pulled out Barefoot Gen, Battle Angel—and Overfiend, giving me a knowing smile and telling me not to let my mother catch me watching it. He didn't tell me a thing about it, and I never saw the box, so I assumed he meant it had Akira-level bloody violence ... Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow ... in multiple media ... it's a hentai porn franchise. I'm sure someone merely forgot to add the bits about the posable action figures, right? Curly Turkey¡gobble!13:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly Turkey, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I'm reviewing the article Little Annie Fanny which you seem to be a major contributor on. The nominator, Prhartcom, according to their user page, is on wikibreak so I am notifying you as well about it. I have placed the article on hold for 7 days pending some changes. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Wugapodes (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded, but I wonder if Prhartcom's really on break—he put up that notice in April, and he sure seems to have made a lot of edits, as recently as today. I wonder if he just forgot to take down the notice. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes and Curly Turkey, I am angry at myself for forgetting to take my Wikibreak notice down. Below is a paragraph of my venting, but I must admit this is rather humorous also.
Wugapodes, please allow me to make a correction to your assumption. I did all of the research for this article and rewrote this article in its entirety myself. (Here is my sandbox version). I don't think Curly Turkey will mind when I say he is not a major contributor. After I completed my research, I deleted the previous, unsuitable version of the article, then I rewrote the article. I asked Curly Turkey to pre-review the article, which he was kind enough to do (I trust him as he is an expert on the subject). However, in addition to his helpful comments that he wrote to the Talk page, he also made numerous tiny edits to the article, each edit changing only a few characters. This is not the way I edit. I write, click Preview instead of Save, write some more, click Preview again, and repeat this process for sometime hours and then finally click Save. I complained to him at the time that others would see his name in the history so much more often than mine and fail to notice the number of characters I contributed in comparison, and assume he was the primary contributor. Now I see that this is exactly what has happened. And now, I am dismayed to see that I have left my Wikibreak notice on and find Curly Turkey, in good faith and only trying to be helpful, responding to the review as if he is the nominator. I fully understand there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. But rarely have I put so much work into an article and I have been patiently waiting for the moment of its GA review for six months. Curly Turkey, thank-you kindly for your help, I am not ungrateful and I remain respectful, but I believe I would like to take over at this point! Prhartcom (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I only just now finished reading Wugapodes' review. Thank-you for stating numerous times that I should have the final say. As I implied, I rarely get that opportunity! And I must clarify that I want you to continue to follow the review and interject your comments anytime. Now I must retire for the evening and briefly return to real life in the coming morning. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confident I've got the location in the photograph right, but if it's where I think it is, I lived for four non-consecutive years right in the middle of this. Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Art Spiegelman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ed the Happy Clown you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:EdTheHappyClown4.gif. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:EdTheHapyClownCharacters.jpg. 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).
The Japanese version of the article gives a couple of sources, and Google Books gives 149 results, although (a) they seem mostly to be in passing, and (b) almost none of them are viewable online. Almost all of them give the title as 放屁合戦 "Hōhi gassen" rather than 屁合戦 "He gassen", though (放屁 refers to the releasing of farts, whereas 屁 is a fart itself—the difference, I suppose, between a "farting battle" and a "fart battle"). If the issue is whether there are enough sources to justify having an article, I say without a doubt yes. If it's about how those sources are being used—I'd have to get out to the library to answer that. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something about the Japanese article, though: it talks about a bunch of these "fart battle" scrolls, and uses the late-Edo one to illustrate the "tradition", rather than being about a single scroll. The earliest example it gives is one by Toba Sōjō from the 12th century. Curly Turkey¡gobble!22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ran into your screen name and immediately thought it must be a play on Cooley-Tukey (an FFT algorithm). After quickly scanning your talk page I guess not...so much for accidental similarities. Have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks—I won't oppose this, but I'm not going to support it either, as I've long wanted to rework the "Themes" section into a more general "Analysis" section (a lot of work, though, as there's a great abundance of sources to work through, and not really any source I'm aware of that tries to sum them up). Someday I may create an Analysis of Maus article (there's more than enough material for it). Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, which is why I won't oppose. Whether I actually get to the second Maus will depend on my caprice. I just feel the "Themes" section could be much stronger. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book is postmodern, persistently self-referential and ironic—most strikingly in its depiction of Jews as mice, Germans as cats, and non-Jewish Poles as pigs.: this makes it seem like the anthropomorphism itself was ironic—at times, irony deflates the animal metaphor, by I wouldn't say it was overall ironic. I think I'd drop the "persistently" as well, not because it's inaccurate, but because it's a bit redundant.
Okay, what I'm trying to do here is preserve your wording (which is fine) while dealing with a readership that won't have a clear sense of postmodernism, and avoiding definitions or anything that sounds professorial. Would something along these lines work? "The book is ironic, self-referential, and postmodern—most strikingly ..." - Dank (push to talk)
Hey Turkey, may I ask for a suggestion on how to modify "the devil watches people killing each other, sure they will go to hell" (from Kill 'Em All#Music and lyrics) in order to be the devil who is sure (because it may appear it is the people who are sure with the current wording).--Retrohead (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gertie the Dinosaur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
One of your favorite awkward manifestations of the English language! Is it always "comics" and never "comic"? Don't worry, I mostly know the answer, however I come to you with the question as the Little Annie Fanny article is undergoing a very helpful copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors and, while I know it should be "comics series" and "comics feature" and not "comic feature", I notice my own writing occasionally says "comic" ("the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic") so I may be getting it wrong sometimes. After all, it is "comic strip", not "comics strip". So what do you think? It would help me the most if you would please go to this page and search for every use of the word "comic" and see if each appearance should instead be "comics". I want to get an understanding of this once and for all. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's "comics" when referring to the medium, so it's correct to say "comics writer", "comics publisher", "comics critic". In "the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic", you're not talking about the medium. "Comics strip" and "comics book" would be logically more correct, but "comic strip" and "comic book" were well established long before the term "comics" (uncountable) became widely used to refer to the medium (which happened by the eighties—it's how Eisner used the term in Comics and Sequential Art).
In "the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic", you're not talking about the medium itself, but individual manifestations of it. Think of it this way: "theatre" is a medium, and a "play" is a manifestation of it. A critic of the medium would be a "theatre critic", rather than a "play critic", right? So take "pencil roughs of each page of the comic" and substitute "theatre" and "play" into it: which sounds better, "pencil roughs of each page of the theatre" or "pencil roughs of each page of the play"? Since it's the latter, you're safe using "comic". Having said that, I avoid it because "comic" can be read in different ways (apparently "comic" is the preferred term for "comic book" in England, for example, and in certain circumstances the word can be read as "comedic", as in "comic novel"). I'd use a term such as "strip" or "work" to avoid confusion, but you're not "incorrect" to use "comic" there. Curly Turkey¡gobble!21:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I appreciate that reaction; the copy edit was good, very helpful; I'll just restore some small changes, feel free as well. I also appreciate your knowledgeable instruction; I get it now: medium vs manifestation; good to know the history. Cheers to you, Prhartcom (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When was the change made? If it was after 2009, I don't think we should change the name in the article. (Also, I'm not a fan of the The Nikkei) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jenny Skavlan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actress Jenny Skavlan was married in 2014 in a dress she designed and made herself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jenny Skavlan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Jesus fuck you, you troll—you're seriously going to pull this shit again? @Crisco 1492: is there nothing we can do about this asslicker starting an editwar every fucking time he interacts with me? Especially when he's this fucking wrong—both with his ass-backwards and erroneous prescriptivism and his misreading of MOS:LARGENUM. Curly Turkey¡gobble!13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, MOS:LARGENUM doesn't require us to round when we have a precise figure, unless there's reason to believe it's "unlikely to be accurate at full precision"—are you saying we should round? Regardless, the main dispute was over his replacement of "over" with "more than", which I already pointed out to him is a fallacy: Google search. Rather than discuss, he chooses to editwar. Curly Turkey¡gobble!14:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd round for the same reason the population is rounded in their example: even a single miscounted dollar makes the number inaccurate. A double-charged ticket that was later refunded, anywhere, and the number is off. Rounding gives us more wiggle room. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue is that he was trying to bait me into an edit war again (this is the fourth time he's pulled this). It's lose-lose: he either gets his way, or I get blocked. Look at his "response" on the talk page: it's totally divorced to what it's supposed to be responding to. He gets to look like he "discussed" it without actually discussing it—obviously calculated to get under my skin. That he's flat-out wrong is almost beside the point. Curly Turkey¡gobble!16:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've demonstrated that you were mistaken and you've completely ignored it. Your comment right now is pure trolling. Crisco, please take a look at the talk page. Even if you agree that "more than" is preferable, I think you'll agree that Lugnuts is not participating in the discussion in good faith. Curly Turkey¡gobble!16:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know next to nothing about you, Lugnuts, or your history together. But even if the behaviour was calculated to get under your skin or to cause an edit war, your best solution would be if you could avoid this happening. Step away for a while if necessary or whatever.
BRD is great when it works, but ultimately even if an editor is ignoring it, it's normally better if you avoid edit warring and simply take it to the article talk page. BRRD is always going to look better on you than BRRRD or BRR...RD. It's also better if you can avoid personal attacks.
I understand this may be difficult in the heat of the moment, and there are circumstances where it's perhaps acceptable to try and keep the original wording (like if the editor is trying to add unsupported nonsense), however most of the time, and particularly for a grammar issue like this, it's going to look far better for you if you started a discussion with resonable language and waited for a response (as you later did). If you received no response in a fair time frame (say 2 days or so), then you can try and reinstate the original wording. If you did receive a response but you feel the editor is being unresonable, there are the many avenues of dispute resolution.
Ultimately, if it does come to ANI, people are going to take far more kindly to you if you handled it as best as you could but the other editor clearly didn't, compared to the case where both sides come out of it looking poorly.
Hi Curly. I am sorry to see the discussion about your comment towards another editor in regard to a content argument you were having. I have argued in your defence at AN/I, but I would advise you to do two things at this point. First, you should unreservedly apologise about that awful comment you made, and undertake never to repeat it, and you should mean those things. I get as protective about my work here as anyone, but it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and while that sucks sometimes when people mess with your work, that is what we all signed up for when we edited here. Secondly, having done that you should walk away from defending your work for the next 24 hours or so. This should include withdrawing from the AN/I discussion after your sincere apology, and also from all discussion or editing of the article. I will be happy to put "dead" vs "deceased" which I will also walk away from. This isn't an administrative warning, as I know you and have worked with you, and am also in a minor dispute with you about a word in the article concerned. Well done for all your work at Wikipedia, of which I think this article is a good example. None of these minor points about formatting or euphemism are worth getting upset about or anybody getting blocked for. Please think about following my advice, as I believe this would be in everybody's best interests. Best wishes, --John (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. I'm taking your advice, though it frustrates me no end because I can't help but feel that Lugnuts will provoke something like this again. By the way, it wasn't me but Crisco who reverted you—I just chimed in on the talk page. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) And here and here are evidence that he's only interested in stirring shit. This will never end, and I'm not the only victim of this. How does he get away with it? Curly Turkey¡gobble!08:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That conversation you linked to is mostly about "he/she" and they have nothing to do with what we're discussing. The few times "who" comes up, you're the only one who thinks you're right. Please just go with the consensus. It is correct.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just went through your talk page history. Wow—now I know why you keep blanking it. "I can revert you till the cows come home." (!) You've even been blocked for blanking your block notices. Curly Turkey¡gobble!07:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've been asked at least 5 times to stop clouding WT:MOS with straw man mischaracterizations
If you don't stop blatantly lying about my and others' views and arguments there in an attempt to derail an RfC you don't like, patience with these antics is going to run out very, very quickly. Six requests to stop is more than enough. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mischaracterization is on your part—blatant lies like "you think the goal her is to prevent use of "is" and "[s]he" and "who" in in-universe writing". The issue from top to bottom has been the proposed prohibition on personal pronouns in out-of-universe writing about fictional characters. all the heat stems from your endless tirades (which the MoS folk are very familiar with) and your refusal to engage with the evidence (your Sherlock Holmes example is possibly the most severe case of cognitive dissonance I've encountered on Wikipedia, with your full-on mindreading of the author's alleged intentions). I've made far more than six requests for hard evidence from you, and your response was "Good day". Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) people can handle their talk as they please, no? - congrats to the article! - (old but not dated) advice from PumpkinSky: have a clean version of before TFA day, don't look all day, revert to it and add only the improvements, - confessing that I never managed to follow that advice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both are of course allowed. Congrats on the TFA of a well-written article of a powerful graphic novel! In our community, I just saw this title in a major bookstore in the "Required Reading" display, set up for the Fall students. I'm proud to link to Spiegelman in my current FAC. (However, I'm also secretly proud of the expert's quote in the last sentence of this section of this article.) Gerda, There's no way I would follow that advice; I have reverted some breathtaking hacks to FAs in the middle of the day. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And these poli's are not any more intelligent with the real sound on, believe me. Oh good, is that not an issue? I thought I remember reading on your user page some time ago that you were disenfranchised and weren't allowed to vote (to keep Harper in office as long as possible, of course ;-) Prhartcom (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I didn't realize that "your" was referrring to me. Funny story—that decision was overturned, so it looked like I was going to get to vote in the upcoming election. Then about a month ago it was appealed and overturned again—just after Harper replaced two of the three judges (I don't understand that part—it's a provincial court, not federal). Apparently it's going to the Supreme Court next month, but not in time for the election. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<blank stare> Sigh. I frankly don't know if I'm franchised or not. Considering how much attention the Canadian government has shown me here (zip, nada, zilch), I don't care. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I care; I'm actually really into politics; it's what I usually read. Figures about Harper. I'm not a fan of the guy. But America's right wing (Republicans) are much worse. A typical Facebook post is, "If they get their way on that, I'm moving to Canada." But Australia's Tony Abbott is off the deep end also. Great; it sounds like you and your wife will get to vote soon. Hope you do also, Chris. Prhartcom (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian government never sent out voter registration cards to expats, even before Harper had the law changed (I've been in Japan since 1998). You have to fill out a form from Elections Canada and they'll send you the stuff (or would have—after five years non-residence you now lose the right to vote, traitor). I'm not sure how the States handles it, but I do know that Americans never lose the right to vote. Switzerland sends out notice every time there's an election (I've got Swiss neighbours), and so does the Japanese government (my wife got notice when she was living in South America). The Japanese situation really surprised me, as the Japanese tend to be pretty politically apathetic (when they're not extremist loons) and they don't put the social emphasis on "democracy" and "rights" that North Americans typically do. My wife, for example, refuses to vote and thinks the whole system's bullshit, but couldn't believe the Canadian government would actually strip people of the right to vote (1.4 million out of 2.8 million expats—a population that would make up the fourth-largest Canadian city). (Yes, I noticed you said you don't care, but I'll rant just the same) Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prhartcom: the further the GOP slides to the right, the further they alienate voters—the next election is the Democrats' to lose. The Canadian election coming up is exciting because there are so many likely outcomes—all three parties seem to have a shot at either first or second place (some recent polls actually had the CPC in third briefly)—and it's all so much more bitter than it was in the Canada I grew up in. I miss the Natural Law Party and their wonderful commercials: "I'm an expert at making things disappear";"A perfect government" ... I can't find the one where Doug Henning proclaims "I made an elephant disappear ... I can make the deficit disappear!" (but I know I didn't imagine it). Curly Turkey¡gobble!03:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I primarily edit in comics, and my edits were not in the least controversial—or did you have some problem with what I did? My edit even tightened the lead in such a way as to avoid what you perceive as a "problem". You, on the other hand? You're trolling both here and there. Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which has been your goal all along. Those "lol"s in particular will go over so well proving your good faith and dedication to improving the encyclopaedia. You might want to read WP:BOOMERANG before shooting yourself in the foot, especially in light of your continuing with your contentious edits in the midst of an RfC about those edits and your declaration to continue to do so regardless of whatever the consensus might turn out to be. Your persistent harassment of a user after being told to stay off their talk page ain't gonna look too good, either. Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! I saw you are a member of Wikiproject Japan; I just requested a move here for the Tou/塔 article, since it seemed to be kind of a weird title given the contents. It'd be lovely if you could take a look or point someone appropriate at it. Thanks, --124.39.78.114 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I have no confidence you will approach the reboot next week in good faith." Just watch me. :-) If you don't put words in my mouth, I'm skeptical we'll have any further issues. Despite your own assumptions, I'm actually quite reasonable, do not hold grudges, and have no wish to perpetuate disputes, but resolve them and move on. I will express confidence, using the positive thinking principle, that the reboot will be framed neutrally and clearly, and that it will be advertised in a non-leading way, and focus on whether MOS should say anything about use of pronouns, and if so what it should say, not on declarations of what's "normal" [to you], or any attempts to pre-load the discussion in a binary, black-and-white way that amounts to a reductio ad absurdum. We do not need an RfC that reads anything like "Should personal pronouns be banned from discussion of out-of-universe discussion of fictional characters?". I trust that you understand this. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not getting off to a good start here—suggesting that I've put words into people's mouths, worded things in a leading way, or in any way at any time acted in bad faith. I started the RfC to solve a problem: the assertion by members of WP:COMIC that there is a consensus that personal pronouns are to be avoided with characters in out-of-universe contexts. The RfC will be framed to deal with that assertion. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kanae Yamamoto (artist) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Winner 42 -- Winner 42 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) I don't think you did anything wrong; your comment[3] was well within my personal bell curve of acceptable Wikipedia talk page sass. 2) Please take it easy on SMcCandlish anyway. This guy has been snarling at shadows for weeks, and I'm starting to realize that it's slightly more than his baseline. Something might be going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, God, you're watching that? I'm just about ready to give up. Some of those editors have agendas incompatible with improving content---what a fucking waste of time and energy. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!12:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not watching (thankfully for my sanity!), but I came across it today and looked over bits of it and the talk page with a massive sinking feeling... POV pushing and competence issues bundled into obstinate editors does not make for decent content! – SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver: sorry it took me a while to get back. I saw your comment on my phone, and then forgot about it next time I got on my laptop. Looking around the web, I see a few sites giving spin-oh-SIS-ee-muh as pronunciation, so I imagine it's like /ˌmæmɪˈlæriəˌspɪnoʊˈsɪsimə/ {{IPAc-en|m|æ|m|ɪ|ˈ|l|æ|r|i|ə|_|s|p|ɪ|n|oʊ|ˈ|s|ɪ|s|i|m|ə}}. Of course, these things are pronounced differently in different dialects, but I'm going for something that follows Help:IPA for English, isn't overly hairsplitting, and (I hope) readers can easily enough "translate" into their own dialect. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!09:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything that looked authoritative, but I'll bet your instincts are close, if not exact. I'll keep searching though. Thanks for your help! RO(talk)22:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And googling around I see the pronunciations "eck-in-o-seer-us" where I've always said "e-kine-o-seer-us"—this book gives the latter. Does this mean that "eus" is normally pronounced "us"? How do you pronounce it? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... you probably don't want to ugly up the lead with a pile of different pronunciations and pronunciaiton combinations, especially if none of them are authoritative. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. I'll keep looking, and if I find anything that looks authoritative I'll get back to you. Thanks again for the advice. RO(talk)22:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well. The talk page at the MoS will certainly be quiet for the next two months. I was just about to announce that I wasn't going to bother with the reboot of the RfC because I found the discussions too draining. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!13:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that if you and JG66 want to get back to working out the intro sentence, you don't need to make sure you haven't run out of Valium. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect's September topic ban of SMC had an expiration date of two months, and it was overturned on appeal two days before it would have ended anyway. I'm not really sure what the argument was. I'll see if I can find the thread. [7][8]
I'm going to be speaking very carefully because I'm the one under topic ban right now. Both admins and I have asked SMC to leave me the heck alone, so instead of restating what's been going on, I'm going to direct you to posts to which he has already had a chance to reply and defend himself. [9] (first line) [10] (red and green text)
If you want to vent and blow off steam and just talk about frustration with SmC, that's one thing. If you have something concrete enough for a formal complaint, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Some of this may be corroborating. However, as tired I am of turning the other cheek for this editor and handing him benefit of the doubt only to see him set it on fire, I am still 100% committed to being fair. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be keeping a few links around in case something blows up, but I'm not going to follow up now. Given how many months had passed since the last incident, though, it's pretty clear he's dragging this around, and it'll pop up again. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!03:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose we should all hope that he just improves his manners and figures himself out. Sounds like you've got a sensible course of action decided upon. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turkey! First of all, thanks for your help on Kill 'Em All, which got promoted a week ago. Now I need some advice on Ride the Lightning, something like an unofficial peer review at the talk page. Sugestions on what's missing, what needs to be corrected, c/e, would be great. I know the article right now is not even a GA, but I plann to nominate this one after New Year, so I got plenty of time to work on it.--Retrohead (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Turkey, I cnaged the description on "Escape", but I could not find much musical analysis on Google Books about it. A couple of authors (Popoff and McIver) call it forgettable, and don't go deeper in structure and lyrics. If you can enter some other books on Google Books I'd be very thankful.--Retrohead (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrohead: Damaga Incorporated only mentions the song in passing, quoting "Fight for my own, to live my own way." (p. 148) and calling the song "relatively obscure" (p. 214).
To Live is to Die has more:
The next song, "Escape", picked up some flak from the metal legions for its supposed move into commercial metal ground – an accusation that carries some weight. With its slightly Bon Jovi-esque chorus of "Out for my own, out to be free" and a much lighter riff weight than any other song on the album apart from "Fade to Black", "Escape sits a little uneasily in the catalogue.
In bass terms, however, it was a heaven-sent opportunity for Cliff to exercise his skills, since melodic metal played at slow to mid-tmep allows plenty of room for the bass guitar to move. The intro, a chugged plus metallic riff, features a couterpoint melody on the bass before the song resolves into a standard down-stroked riff. There's no ignoring that chorus, though – which, given John Marshall's earlier comment about Cliff helping Lars to "avoid a lot of winpy rock", seems completely at odds with the rest of the album.
Still, like most bands, Metallica were and remain at lest partially democratic, and judging from what peopl have told us about Cliff so far, we can ssume that he let this rather flaccid song through the normally rigorous Burton quality control with no more than a resigned shrug. In any case, "Escape" leaves the door open for the fantastic "Creeping Death" ... (p. 212)
Of the eight tracks on Ride the Lightning – as they had decided to call the album after another of its centrepiece tracks – almost all would survive to become cornerstones of the long-term Metallica mythology: the only exception being the one track that seemed to offer a shred of light amidst the unrelenting gloom, a Thin Lizzy-esque mini-anthem in the making called "Escape", its comparatively upbeat message – "Life is for my own, to live my own way" – being the exception to the rule in the otherwise unremittingly bleak landscape of Hetfield's lyrics.
...
The writing credits were also more evenly shared this time. The two most important tracks ("Fade..." and "Creeping...") were credited to all four members. Two to Hetfield, Ulrich and Burton ("Fight..." and "For Whom..."); two to Hetfield, Ulrich, Burton and Mustaine ("Ride..." and "...Ktulu") and the least significant two to Hetfield, Ulrich and Hammett ("Trapped..." and "Escape").
...
When I teased him [Lars] and asked if they had ever tried – just once – to write a commercial hit song, he relaxed again and admitted, "One time and one time only," citing "Escape", in so many words, their Thin Lizzy-esque romp from Ride. The fact that neither Music for Nations nor Elektra had eventually chosen it as a single – the former preferring the more à la mode "Creeping Death", the latter not bothering to release a single at all – only reinforced their conviction, he said, that they should never "depend on adapting to whatever mode popular music is in at any given moment. We're into sticking to what we wanna do, sticking to all the things we, as a band, believe in. And if we can stick to what we are, sooner or later people will have to change their ideas about us and not the other way around."
Hey, nice to see someone else other than "my attack dog" (don't ask who called him that) has noticed this user's disruptive behaviour. As far as I can tell there are currently five users trying to drive me off Wikipedia, mostly (apparently) for no reason other than shits and giggles, it would seem. Two of them (the ones whose usernames begin with J and B) are old boys, and so are untouchable, so I've been trying my best to avoid them. Two (the ones whose usernames begin with C and T) are themselves already overdue to be indefinitely blocked for the disruption they cause to the project, so I'm not that worried about their long-term chances of driving me off.
AlbinoFerret, though, appears to be a different animal. He was essentially an SPA for most of his account's history, until the one article he was involved in was the subject of a massive ANI fustercluck, at which point he apparently started putting most of his efforts into noticeboards, and acting like an admin by unilaterally and rather clumsily closing complicated RFCs. He still hardly ever touches the mainspace, but rarely seems to get called out for hanging around ANI and occasionally calling for the heads of productive users.
Have you seen anything like it before? Any idea how to work with such users?
I have no idea. Until very recently I had rarely even seen inside ANI—out of 134 edits there in my entire editing history, 78 have been in the last month. I did have a chuckle when I checked out his (?) edit history—virtually nothing to editspace, and out of 7000 edits total, 1641 were to Talk:Electronic cigarette—the fucking talk page—which has 25 archives. For Electronic cigarette?! Talk:State of Palestine has only 12!
ANI's a whole other story—I figured out something was horribly wrong when AlbinoFerret called to have me indef blocked (!!!) for swearing at Lugnuts—and then tried to distort the record by saying I'd editwarred by reverting two IP vandals as well as Lugnuts—get that? Reverting two unambiguous IP vandals on the TFA day (AF even acknowledged it) plus Lugnuts equalled a violation of 3RR (!?!?!). My jaw dropped that someone would pull that. We're talking about someone who's actively practising gaming the system.
What to do? Keep records, I guess, and have them ready when things boomerang on AlbinoFerret some day. He's a net negative on Wikipedia and the number of people who realize it appears to be growing. He's likely monitoring our talkpages for "proof" that we're buds or something—he's already presented "proof" of that since we both edited History of Japan, right? A part of me says you can't win the game without learning to play it yourself, but that's a path I never want to follow ... Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!13:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god... I was aware of his interest in the electronic cigarette article, but... I had no idea the archives for that page were so long... I guess we know why he feels such an affinity for CurtisNaito, then. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing this, AlbinoFerret's opinion has significantly dropped in value, and it's now obvious why he shows up in practically every ANI thread I've seen. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because of course, our discussing AlbinoFerret's disruption after the thread has been closed, it means we had prearranged collusion in the matter.[12] That must be why you weighed in on the dispute between CurtisNaito and everyone else on Talk:Emperor Jimmu early summer 2014, and why you and I fought over the same article later that summer. We planned this whole thing out years in advance. Because I'm the paranoid one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could help me figure out this problem: I have no doubt that John Carter thinks I'm "uncivil" because I called his behaviour on this thread that of a madman (he kept insisting, despite being corrected numerous times, that I was involved in, and forum-shopping, a then-open DRN thread about Daisaku Ikeda, despite my having not posted on DRN in years, and my having never edited the Daisaku Ikeda article, at that point). And maybe it was uncivil for me to call his behaviour insane; but it was once, six months ago, and I apologized and requested peaceable cooperation only eleven hours later. But the real question is why John Carter even thought I was involved in the Daisaku Ikeda dispute -- he himself was involved, so he must have known I had nothing to do with it. The whole thing just didn't make a whole lot of sense, and has been confusing the hell out of me ever since -- did the incident colour John Carter's entire perception of me, and that is why he has been seeking my head ever since? Or was he deliberately gaming the system by making accusations he knew I would probably be so shocked and offended by that I would likely call him a lunatic rather than simply deny, thus giving him an excuse to call for me to be banned for incivility? It's pretty damn confusing... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not familiar enough with John Carter (is he an ANI regular?). My impression is he pushes for punishments with a little too much zeal, but I haven't seen anything that makes me suspect him of anything. He might be confusing different discussions (say, Soka Gakkai). I forget why I was looking, but I thought you were involved in this discussion at Nanking massacre that I tried to referee—probably because there were a lot of long comments on a politically-charged Japan article, and the impression you've made on me is that you post lots of long comments on politically-charged Japan articles. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On topics he knows about, yeah, he is an ANI regular. Generally, I am among those least likely to "pull the trigger," if I can see any other options open. Unfortunately, Hijiri is actively minimizing the amount of contact, and the regularity of contact, I have had with him, and, well, contact he has had with others, I think at least in one case by e-mail, about me. I know of at least one such message of the last type myself. My primary field of interest is religion, because my town has a huge stock of theology books, and I have some experience in the field. I think it might help a lot if you review all the ANI's in recent months involving Hijiri, and the discussions prompting them. I think you would be really surprised by the amount of them, and the regularity of what some might call the regularity of Hijiri's use of both wall-of-words tactics and rather regular vitriol. And, FWIW, I saw this discussion because it was linked to on Dennis Brown's talk page, specifically indicating that some of the comments here seemed to be continuing the civility problem which has been noted a lot lately. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that comment where AlbinoFerret accused us of collusion, as I predicted he would? I'd like to see Hijiri do something about the wall-of-words, but I don't think it's a "tactic"—I think concision is not his forté, and I've dropped out of any number of talk page discussions because I didn't have the patience for it (though he's not the only offender). That and the language are issues, but out of all the issues (content disputes, editwarring, endless IDHT discussions, TLDR comments) the language is the least disruptive—yet the easiest to target at ANI, as it's easy to provide a diff for a "you idiot", but difficult to dig up and interpret diffs for patterns of disruptive behaviours, and difficult to get people at ANI to take the time and effort to work through them (and easy to dismiss them as a "wall of words"). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice John Carter directly commented here, without even mentioning his bizarre and completely outrageous "slip-up" when I first encountered him, except to say that he only comments on ANI discussions of subject he "knows about", indicating that it couldn't have been an accidental confusing of one Japanese Buddhist with another who was born after the first one died. Odd. Does this indicate that it was a deliberate and bad-faith attempt to get a rise out of me? If i had made a completely false accusation against John Carter in the way he accused me, it would probably count as "incivility" again, wouldn't it... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ester Claesson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ester Claesson is considered Sweden's first female landscape architect? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ester Claesson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The article says he was born in Trenton, Ontario, which is in Quinte West. (We apply "people from" categories based on current boundaries, even if they're not the ones that were applicable at the time.) Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the T&F access didn't quite have what you were looking for, I thought I'd let you know that WP:EBSCO has Japan Forum, Japanese Studies, and a few other things of potential interest - launching today. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lo Kauppi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actress Lo Kauppi was a singer and guitar player in the feminist punk band Vagina Grande? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lo Kauppi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, remember that time a certain user followed me to several articles and Wikipedia namespace discussions?
Re this: The same thing has just happened again. I'm trying to keep my own number of posts on the GAR page to a minimum for obvious reasons, and I'm a bit concerned that pointing out that TH1980 is posting there not because he actually has checked all of the sources (he obviously hasn't) but because he wants to undermine me as he has been doing since early May might count as an user behaviour remark in a content-based forum, and I'm trying my darnedest to avoid that these days. Also, I did ping him -- but that was assuming he wasn't just going to show up and post the opposite of whatever I did. Any chance you'd be willing to post a notice of this somewhat suspect behaviour below his !vote instead? I'm posting this on-wiki rather than by email because I have no problem with other users knowing that I think TH1980 is hounding me; I just don't want to have to post it myself on the GAR page and open myself up for worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough evidence of that, like his comment at the Matsui FAC, but I don't think it's really necessary—enough commenters will point out the issues with the article and with the review beyond the sourcing issues. The last thing we want is drama, so: 黙殺? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ... I see you've already responded since I started typing my reply. I'd shut up now, or you'll just give them fodder for making this a Hijiri vs CurtisNaito thing, which it's already being shaped into. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see your comment before responding this morning. Dennis and Kingsindian explicitly told me to limit replies to CurtisNaito to one or two, so that's what I'm doing. I haven't touched TH1980's extremely dubious problem of showing up wherever I go, either. I'm worried now, though, because an obvious Korean-POV sleeper-sock has shown up as well, so in terms of "numbers" it's three-against-four until someone else weighs in. So pointing out that every Wikipedian who didn't either nominate the page for GA status or show up to undermine me or show up after a seven-year period of inactivity are in favour of delisting might be a necessity... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Jesus ... I thought the GAR would be pretty open-and-shut—it's clear the article's problematic and the review was inadequate, but now it's being drowned in inter-editor squabbling. Honestly, I think everyone should just have presented their case and left it like that, and the closer would have demoted it whatever TH1980 had to say. He should have just been ignored, but now he has the opportunity to whip out a "I think that your errors here have been corrected enough times already"—of course we know he's done no such thing, but a third party is going to see that and assume it's an interpersonal dispute. My advice is to stop now, because it's far too easy for him to game the discussion the more you acknowledge him. It's advice I'd like to give Nishidani and Signedzzz before they pop by, but I don't think they'd be interested in what I have to say. You guys are your own worst enemies, y'know? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I realized that you recently reverted one of my edits regarding the release date of Black Flag's debut Nervous Breakdown. I know that almost everywhere on Wikipedia where the EP is mentioned listed the release date as 1978, and that many other websites give this figure. However, it was actually released in early 1979, and I have recently changed many of these instances on Wikipedia to the correct date. In this 1980 fanzine interview, Greg Ginn stated that the record was "recorded in January '78 and released over a year later." Therefore, it had to be released in 1979. You may also want to take a look at this discussion we had over at Discogs.com regarding this issue. Pazuzu65 (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that Wikipedia relies on what it considers reliable sources, and that the date you've discovered would qualify as original research. I can understand that may be frustrating, but unless reliable third-party sources can be found to contradict the sources already used, we can't claim the date you've discovered. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!07:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But how is an interview with an actual band member not considered reliable? Those aren't my words, those are Greg Ginn's, quoted from around the time of release. If it wasn't released until "over a year later" just as Ginn stated, then it had to be released in 1979. Pazuzu65 (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose your concern could, reasonably, be taken to ANI, if it seems to have been, basically, contrary to consensus. Also, if you weren't already aware, there is a current request for arbitration involving Hijiri88 and sundry others. This questionable behavior might be seen as qualifying, broadly, in the scope of that case, if it is taken of course. If you yourself saw fit to add anything to the request itself, or to the case if it is taken, you are, of course, more than welcome to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmgewehr88:, if you had bothered to check the time stamps, you would have noticed that the matter had been apparently resolved on the talk page about half an hour before the post. I admit, I had not checked the article talk page before my original post, and I apologize for having not seen that. However, I find the arrogant and self-righteous nature of your above comment frankly disgustingly amusing, considering that, if anyone could be thought to be beating a dead horse, it is the person who clearly falsely accuses others of improper actions when it is clear from the very nature of the comments in that section that they were discussing that the allegations made had nothing to do with reality, but were simply the presumptuous, inaccurate, assumptions who blindly comments based on his own irrational defense of his buddy. I am speaking specifically of you, Sturmgewehr, and your frankly laughable impugning of me at Dennis Brown's talk page. I do hope you realize that, if the ArbCom case is taken, and of course as I said Curly is free to comment if he sees fit, that you realize the behavior of all editors involved may well be examined, and, frankly, under the circumstances, I am far from believing that if you continue in the rather explicit, unexamined, assumptions of bad faith you have been making of late, you may not be particularly fond of what decisions they make. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet. I do not mean that to include you as an individual, but there is a good chance the behavior of CurtisNaito and interaction with him by Hijiri and others will be, considering they were both given "final warnings" by Dennis Brown in the last AN or ANI thread about the recent problems. And, in general, ArbCom reviews the behavior of all involved in a given point of contention. That is, of course, if the case is taken, but I think, under the circumstances, that might be more likely than not. If nothing else, if the case is accepted, you might want to watchlist it and mention anything you see fit to the evidence or proposed decision pages. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problems I've had have been with neither CurtisNaito nor Hijiri—I'm there to copyedit, and my disputes are with those interfering with that. Don't fall for AlbinoFerret's allegations that Hijiri and I are in cahoots. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only people I have thought to be in cahoots are Hijiri and one or more of his most frequent supporters. I don't remember seeing you before at all (if we have met before, sorry about that), so you don't qualify for inclusion in that. Good luck with the copy editing, by the way. I saw a subject-verb problem in the first paragraph of a page an arb linked to yesterday. Granted, it's a poor article at this stage, but still indicates that a lot of the basic work, like comprehensibility, still needs to be done. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*high 5 back*—whoops! Sorry, that was my gallant cock deep and snug down your throat. I always edit with my gallant cock in hand and keep forgetting which to toss up in delight. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!03:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! No need to get so aggressive there, Turkey. We're all on the same side here.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kobayashi Kiyochika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Coemgenus: Hey, I'm really sorry. I had just noticed when I got up this morning that I hand't responded to your last comment, and feel like a dick for that. Thanks a lot for taking the time to review the article. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed, but our Iwane Matsui article was not promoted to FA because of the sourcing problems. I personally think it shouldn't even be a GA with the present sourcing (see the changing of a reliable source's wording from "ultranationalist propaganda" to "promoting pan-Asianism"), but I really don't think the time is right for me to reassess it, with all the crap I went through last month.
I'd leave it for now. I don't think it's serious enough a violation to make a stink of it under the circumstances. By the way, I don't think it was a great idea to bring CurtisNaito up at ArbCom. If you're allowed to strike those bits, I would ASAP and keep your statements strictly on the case at hand. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!11:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I didn't bring him up at ArbCom; I commented on one of several other users who had already brought him up. The problem in question was that Dennis Brown was, through his own previous inaction, partly responsible for the current mess with the other user, but his comment read like his only relation to the issue was via the allegedly-related problem with CurtisNaito. But you're right, I suppose. Thanks! :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you feel the need to delete my comment on the talk section of Debito's page? What policy did I violate? Do you really need to resort to language like "having a bug up your arse"?
Except that it does, troll. Of course, if you're blocked, you'll just come back as another Browny Cow or some shit. It's amazing you would dedicate yourself to this horseshit. Did Debito fuck your girlfriend or something? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!12:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again - it isn't me. You should go and get someone to check on it or something. I've never ip hopped or whatever, nor would I know how. And browny cow isn't me, maybe you should check that out too.
You should also take a look at the sort of abusive language you use. If I were to play "amatuer psychologist" here, at a guess I'd say you behave like that because you're compensating for something? ChemicalG (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously it isn't me with that ip thing. yes I know that because I've started off by editing one article it looks bad, but none of what you assert I did I've actually done. I don't know how to prove this to you but if you've got an email address or something private I can email you my number or my skype details so you can verify this for yourself. ChemicalG (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it—the first couple are just cut-and-paste jobs from the Wikipedia article (easily verified by the dates of the posts), but how is this a violation with 32.4% confidence? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Form versus content. The novel, poetry, history, lexicography, and comics are artforms that can be communicated via a form such as a book. Comics itself is not tied to any form—the same comic strip, for example, may appear in a newspaper, magazine, book, poster, T-shirt, or cereal box without compromising its being a comic strip even in the slightest. "Film" is a little harder to wrap your head around as the term "film" is used to refer both to the content and to the physical format—perhaps if you call the artform "cinema" it's easier to understand. "Cinema" is an artform typically shot on "film" (and these days more frequently on "video"). "Newspaper", "Magazine", "book", "poster", "T-shirt", "cereal box", "film", "video"—these are formats, the vehicles by which the content is delivered. Cinema, comics, poetry, novels—these are not formats. You can't republish a poem as a novel format the way you could republish a comic strip as a poster. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!01:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who has stuck his nose into way too many ArbCom cases over the years, I do not in any way blame you for not wanting to be involved in the current one regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88. I know from prior experience kidney stones may hurt a little worse for a while, but the pain doesn't last as long as the length of time it takes a case to close.
Having said that, it certainly is possible that CurtisNaito and some of the others involved might have their conduct reviewed, including me, and that presenting some information on the matter in question might be useful there. And I tend to believe that any requests for anything other than immediate blocks or similar at ANI or elsewhere while a possibly related ArbCom case is open tend to historically be pretty much non-starters.
I have no reason to think that your own conduct in any related matters is something the arbs are likely to find at all worth their addressing in the case, for what little that might be worth. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I guess I was thinking of some of my own input at ArbCom over the years, like the recent GMO case, in which I have, according to a table on one of the pages, never even edited one of the more directly related articles or talk pages. But I added a statement about some party or parties to the case in the request stage, so, even if I have been in no particular way involved in the dispute prior to the case, I become involved by, basically, wanting to mouth off submit material regarding the conduct in related fields of some of those involved in that topic area. So, even if you as an individual are not in any way involved in the central dispute related to that case, you are free to submit any evidence you might think might be useful to the arbs in drafting a resolution of the matter. And, in lots of cases, that can include input from marginally related matters. CN is seeking to be a party, and, if he does become one, or if others whose conduct you find questionable or deserving consideration by the arbs do, you would, of course, be free to at least provide diffs to discussion you think might be useful to the arbs in drawing their conclusions. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've talked about this before, haven't we? The issues with CurtisNaito would continue to be issues if Hijiri had never gotten involved. CurtisNaito is muddying the waters to make the case "Hijiri vs the World", which has AlbinoFerrett frothing in anticipation. I won't walk into such an obvious trap. The case has nothing to do with me—or with CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your rather obvious assumption of bad faith on the part of all, including me, is unfortunate. Regarding your point that the case has nothing to do with CN, CN isn't the only one who has brought himself up in the terms of that case. If you look at the opening statements of Dennis Brown requesting the case now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence, he specifically linked to and discussed a matter that had been at ANI regarding the matter of CN-Hijiri contact, and actually CN has requested being listed as a party. If you believe that there is a trap being laid, then it would be reasonable to, if nothing else, indicate that you have reason to believe such a trap might be being laid. I myself don't think that this is going to be the easiest case for the arbs to deal with, and I also don't think that it necessarily is going to lead to the kind of sanctions others have suggested, such as blocks on editors. If nothing else, if you think that CN is trying to muddy the waters and others, I guess including me, are attempting to lay some sort of trap, you might at least let the arbs know that. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The muddying of waters I've ascribed to CurtisNaito; the laying of traps I ascribe to AlbinoFerrett, who knows too well how to game the system, and I won't fall for it. Stop trying to get me involved. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Curley. Markstein says, "Baron Mooch's daily-only comic strip began on Monday, November 1, 1909, in The Los Angeles Examiner, where Herriman was working at the time." The Oct. 12, 1909, date comes the book cite in the "Comic strips by George Herriman" section of George Herriman. Giving Markstein's scholarship, I thought it was worth addressing since unaddressed discrepancies tend to have ripple effects. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, though I have Goulart's 100 Years of American Newspaper Comics, which doesn't mention Mooch. Still, if there are now two sources saying Nov. 1, this might be worth addressing. I'm always a little wary with gold-starred articles, but we may be onto something here. Should we move and interpolate our existing dialog to the Herriman talk page?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sound eminently reasonable, though, of course, per WP:WORLDVIEW, we should say "late 1909" rather than "autumn 1909." Would you mind tackling it? It's after 8 p.m. here and I'm kinda bushed! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Damn, you're a good researcher! I know Baron Mooch doesn't have his own article, so do you think there's room for adding this image to the Herriman page, captioning it with the date? And then — not to call them out on it, by any means, but just to help prevent the wrong date from continuing to be disseminated — I think we should add a footnote saying Harvey and Markstein give an erroneous date of Nov. 1. As long as we keep it to a footnote, I think we're accomplishing due diligence. Also, having both well-respected historians Harvey and Markstein in the footnote shows that the error is a common one and helps explain away Nov. 1 appearing elsewhere. What do you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curley, Michael Tisserand here. I've never ever gone behind the curtains on wiki before but stumbled on your note about my Herriman bio. Please feel free to contact me if I can ever provide info on Herriman. You can find me on Facebook or michaeltisserand at yahoo ... The book is coming out, finally, in fall 2016 on HarperCollins. Tisserand NOLA (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Tisserand NOLA[reply]
Oh, there's "hiding" going on all right, by AF and JC who are trying to filibuster the discussion with irrelevant bullshit. It's not ABF either ... it's BF. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the ambiguity. The piped link in my above post was meant to imply he was assuming bad faith on your part. That he himself is acting in bad faith is a given, but was not something I wanted to imply by linking to the ABF page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, while hunting down diffs for the ArbCom case I was re-reading the entire history of Talk:Kenji Miyazawa and was reminded of my first interaction with AF. There had been an RFC left open despite having been resolved weeks earlier, and some genius on AN posted a request for an "experienced editor" to close it. (This was right before the big blowup about whether requests for closure should even work that way, if I recall correctly.) AF, apparently in an attempt to get his edit counter up, was going around unilaterally closing a bunch of them, and he made a massive faux-pas on the Kenji close (taking a concession one user on one side had made to one user on the other as a "consensus statement"). When I called him out on this and pointed out that at the time he had almost no edits that weren't related to electric cigarettes and so hardly qualified as "experienced", he pointed to his over 5k edits in a wide range of articles, even though probably 90% of those were related to electric cigarettes, apparently a more controversial topic by far than abortion and the Israel-Palestine dispute. (Part of the reason I'm on ArbCom now is because AG and his friends blame my verbosity and refusal resolve conflicts for the three archive pages on the Kenji talk page -- glass house much?) I don't remember why I just kind of left that hanging there -- I think I was stressed out with work stuff (fourth anniversary of the tsunami, UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and its aftermath).
The really ironic thing is that AF claims he is not collaborating with John Carter on the ANI thread because they "don't edit the same articles" -- which of course would be impossible because John Carter never edits articles that don't have "bibliography of encyclopedias" in the title (4,600 edits in the last 14 months, and 4,549 of them to this "topic area"), and AF apparently isn't much better. And the really ironic thing is how often John Carter calls me "paranoid" and accuses me of assuming bad faith, when he openly admitted that he thought I would "follow him to articles on Christianity" (an area he knowsI was editing -- and on the same side as him! -- months before his recent conflict with me even started).
Sorry, just thought you'd get a chuckle out of some of the tremendous historical ironies of this conflict.
Funny indeed. Notice how AF tries to make it seem like he couldn't have a beef with me because he has "never edited an article" I have, to his knowledge? Also notice how he's included the ANI discussion as evidence against you? Evidence of what? It's linked without context. I can imagine 11 Arbs each clicking through and scratching their heads. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!16:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly hoping for just that. I don't really think the ArbCom case should be about anything but what its title says, but if it results in sanctions for the random trolls weighing in just for shits in giggles not realizing how serious their abuses are, it will be all the better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never noticed this before but ... [14] I don't know whose user page is more shameless: the one who brags about how many hundred RFCs they sloppily closed, or the one who brags about how many poorly-sourced articles they managed to sneak past the GA reviewers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(That's a Simpsons reference, in case you or anyone else reading is not aware, and chooses to read this as a personal attack, use of profanity, inappropriate ethnic stereotype or anything else of the sort. Your name being Turkey and your using the word "jive", I just couldn't resist.)
I replied to TH1980 on CurtisNaito's page because I knew if I did so on his own page he would just delete my post and insult me again. But I don't see any reason to hold a conversation with you on CurtisNaito's page when your own talk page is less hostile to me than Curtis's is. Given what has been happening recently, I deeply suspect this assertion might be taken by someone somewhere as "evidence" that I make baseless aspersions against others unless I provide solid evidence in the same post. So here: CurtisNaito's talk page is a hostile environment (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) and TH1980 deletes my posts on his talk page and insults me (diff, diff, diff). (I'm also pretty sure CurtisNaito has been engaged in undisclosed off-wiki contact with these two users, and very possibly one more, about me and how I have been "harassing" him and some other long-blocked users like Enkyo2 and JoshuSasori.)
Anyway, as for Henshall "jiving" with other sources, that's what I meant by "dubious material" -- I will check what our article attributes to Henshall against what sources I do have access to. If "Henshall" (our article's representation) jives with real world Henshall but not with other sources, we can have a discussion, but if our article cites Henshall and real-world Henshall doesn't say what our article attributes to him, obviously that material must be removed immediately.
(Note that the "possibly one other user" has admitted quite openly to receiving email contact from a user who is apparently in good standing, with no blocks or bans, and didn't wish to be named, but apparently wanted me off Wikipedia. The other user shortly thereafter posted on ANI about the banned users Enkyo2 and JoshuSasori being my victims -- even though the former was a victim of the broader community, and the latter outed me and threatened me in real life -- but was especially concerned with the CurtisNaito dispute. Just bringing this up to explain the parenthetical statement above. I'm really here to discuss Henshall jiving with the other sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC) )[reply]
Is from the seventh season. Weird ... I was still watching the show back then, but I totally don't remember it. I didn't have this nickname yet, though, so it wouldn't have jumped out at me. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!09:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even want to criticize him for lying about me on ArbCom and calling the above an "attack", since I sincerely hope the Arbs see the above, check my diff, and tell Curtis off for his gross refusal to acknowledge any criticism of his edits and his repeated attempts to rewrite the reason for the article being delisted. Next he'll surely say the reason Iwane Matsui isn't an FA has nothing to do with sourcing! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm the guy who's been trolling in relation to the Debito article. It got a little heated, and I behaved like an utter dick. I'm not excusing my behavior but it was purely borne out of frustration. My apologies for my behavior, I will not be trolling again.
Hey - I made an account. Full disclosure, yes you were right that I was also "ChemicalG". No more trolling - this new account I will use, and consider it a fresh start. Again, my apologies for my behavior before. Yodenshi (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but what on earth does this have to do with the ArbCom case? Additionally, I stated my reason for making the edit in my edit summary -- the edit I reverted had violated WP:V. Your making up your own motivation for me seems pretty weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the case. You seemed to misunderstand the content and reasoning of my edit, which itself had nothing to do with the case. But what does it have to do with CIRCULAR? My edit didn't cite Wikipedia, or a source that used Wikipedia. My source (the well-regarded Japanese encyclopedia MyPaedia) predates Wikipedia. CurtisNaito removed the source and added a source that didn't directly support the material, but left the material itself largely intact. This is a violation of WP:V, so I reverted. Circular sourcing has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MyPaedia is a commercial Japanese-language encyclopaedia produced by Hitachi commonly included on electronic dictionaries (which are very popular in Japan). I've got a copy on my old SII SR-ME7200. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!10:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide explicit evidence and citations for controversial material, especially when dealing against common terminology. Regardless on your position of the existence of race, most people (the average, reasonable person) would see those groups as ethnic groups and not separate races. See WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTBLUE, and related articles.--Sığe|д=)01:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and take a pill. Also, I'd like to see a citation to that "most people" remark. ~~
WP:IRRELEVANT. The burden of proof is on you, the editor and apparent "owner" of the article, to prove the allegation of races and not ethnic groups. Please provide evidence in any contemporary source relevant to where Germans, Poles, and Jews are distinctly races. As a matter of fact, I'd consider it to have its own unfortunate implications, given the misconception the NSDAP considered Slavs to be separate from Caucasians (which is already proven untrue in their own records in the Caucasian article...).--Sığe|д=)02:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice dodging the question--and personal threat on my talk page--which is just making you look bad. Give me one single reason why I should NOT report you for all your transgressions and being uncooperative? Are you so lazy you can't defend your own controversial claim? I don't see "races" in the sources. You think you're being PC, but if you ask me (someone with partial Jewish heritage) the burden of proof is on you. Please be cooperative with the Project. I have marked your unsourced and controversial term as such on the page. Have a lovely day!Sığe|д=)15:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is so well-sourced and justified, it should be anything but a chore to specify and clarify the citation. Furthermore, look at terms such as Hakuna matata; in the Lion King, it is translated as "no worries", yet that is not the meaning in Swahili and only a very loose translation. That is clarified in the article. It's not RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, it's WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTBLUE. Ergo, "ethnic groups" is superior to "race" in this context.--Sığe|д=)22:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cute, but the onus remains on your shoulders. The article's been through multiple reviews and is viewed by a quarter million readers a year, and after twelve years you're the first to raise a stink—and I'm not even the one who added "race" to the article (here's the article before my first edit to it in 2011). You have yet to back up your "most people" (let alone your bizarre non sequitur about how fucking PC I am!), and you'll also have to deal with articles with titles like "Allegories of Race in Spiegelman's Maus", etc. Ergo, go take a pill. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of curse words is not only violating my own sensitivies, it's violating WP:CIVIL. If you cannot hold a peaceful debate on the Internet, perhaps this Project (and Internet usage in general) is not suited to your neurotype. Furthermore, I added an objective citation for "ethnic group" in the article lead. Ergo, you are wrong. P.S. Your fallacy of "multiple reviews and views" violates WP:NOTDONE. Ergo, you are being destructive to the rules and spirit of the Project and I highly suggest you take a break if you are experiencing any health-threatening issues. This is not out of snark malevolence but true concern and agape. I may need to contact an admin of your infestingly melancholic behavior if you continue in this way. Cheers.--Sığe|д=)23:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Objectivity", right! That's why you ignore the evidence you demanded and bludgeoned the article with a grotesquely inappropriate use of a source. Quit embarrassing yourself. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to cite specific evidence, I already have two trusted sources including an analytic novel and a university; I actually have two more academic sources pulled up citing "ethnic groups" specifically. Every time you revert, I will add another source. I am helping the Project, you are not. You are being defensive and acting like you own the article.--Sığe|д=)23:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if it's OK with you --since apparently I have to ask my fief lord (you) to edit the holy Maus-- I'm going to cleanup that messy References section full of red error text and other errors. Instead of fighting against truth, you should at least try to make "your" article look pretty.--Sığe|д=)23:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make heads or tails of that References section. It looks butchered compared to the 2011 version. Looking at the MoS there seems to be a lot of formatting errors. Did you do this?--Sığe|д=)23:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I looked over this dispute, read the article, and looked at the sources. Technically yes Germans, Poles, and Jews are separate ethnic groups, but back before the war Jews and sometimes Poles were thought to be a separate race (in the United States too). I would say "ethnic group" would be more appropriate in the lede, but there should be an ajoining note about this notion of separate "races". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether "race" or "ethnic group" is better is something that should be fought elsewhere. The issues here are:
Sigehelmus is pushing a POV with an "everyone knows this" attitude, and is pretending that evidence contradicting him simply doesn't exist.
You are misusing the definition of "trolling". Trolling is defined as follows " Digital Technology. Informal. To post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on (the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response. To upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages or comments." Please provide objective evidence to support this claim. The case of Helmet Schmidt was that it was a ridiculous overspacing format error in the lead, this is irrelevant. My objection is the personal attacks Curly Turkey has made against me and his playing of ownership of the Maus article he has brought to "Featured" status (which he has violated several rules of in his despotic defense). I have added a third source in defense of "ethnic groups" over "race". I have no less than three tabs more of sources at hand at this moment and I will add them if need be.--Sığe|д=)02:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your dirty mouth is violating WP:CIVIL (you seem to have a history of blasphemy). You are acting overaggressive and violating many rules in this way. I will not converse with you if you continue to be so vulgar. I have already reported you twice. I am not abusing sourcing; you've pretty much violated almost every Wiki policy that exists. If you're middle aged, why do you curse like a teenager? Do you not know many Wikipedians are hurt and offended by this uncivil talk?--Sığe|д=)02:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sigehelmus: As I pointed out on my talk page, those sources aren't adequate; they refer to the difference as "ethnic groups" but they don't state why this term is preffered over "races" or provide an argument for such. Also, you don't typically put references in the lede unless it's a really short article. You should remove them from the lede, and another user proposed using both terms.
@Curly Turkey: This guy isn't trolling and he's apparently sensitive; mind toning it down just a little? But yes I see that he's not using sources correctly. Would you agree to using "ethnic groups or races" or vice versa? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to "tone it down" when you're not being bombarded with accusations and demands from someone with firm ideas about race and ethnicity. I'd prefer something less awkward than "ethnic groups or races", if anyone knows a suitable term. I'd like to see that lead unbutchered before considering anything. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!09:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Sigehelmus. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. "Asking for a block?" is a threat.Sığe|д=)15:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...insofar as when he attacked me for this edit he may not have been referring to MyPaedia as a CIRCULAR reference, but rather to the inline interwiki link. I don't like inline interwiki links in general (they are sometimes appropriate, though).
The problem is that for him to assume I am the one who added the link when his diff didn't indicate such is an assumption of bad faith, and for him to claim that insertion of a wikilink is the same as citing Wikipedia is either a deliberate misrepresentation or an accidental and highly incompetent one.
And either way we would have needed to be mind-readers to have immediately understood such a mistake and corrected him accordingly, so our initial assumption that he thought MyPaedia was a Wikipedia mirror was probably justified.
I know. That's why I said if it was accidental then we have a case of gross incompetence, and if it was deliberate then ... well, that would be "assuming" bad faith. Anyway, the Kusumoto Ine article does seem rather excessive. I don't dislike inline interwiki links per se, but I think the whole concept just seems so pessimistic. It only takes about 30 minutes to throw together a passable stub article on a topic that can be expanded later, so redlinking and adding the Japanese text inline seems like a much more proactive way of dealing with such cases than what effectively amounts to saying "Oh, we don't have an article on that topic on English Wikipedia yet, and we probably never will -- but why not check out Japanese Wikipedia?". ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, if he were talking about anything other than MyPaedia, he would have said so after you brought it up to him by name ... and then I brought it up to him ... and then I brought it up again at the Arb case. There's no wiggle room: it's about the MyPaedia link. If he had made an honest (an easy-to-make) mistake, he's had ample opportunity to fess up. Rather, he has dug in and continued to repeat it at the Arb case. You really can't call that anything but lying at this point.
Yes, it takes a mere 30 minutes or less to whip up a stub, but when you're furiously expanding an article, that means 30 minutes away from that article you're expanding. The illm (a) gives readers something rather than nothing, and (b) makes it easy to find those articles that deserve to be created when through with the first article. I did this with ukiyo-e and John Wilson Bengough, where I added piles of interwiki links, and then after I was through I went through the redlinks one by one. I think ukiyo-e's down to two or three redlinks now. Those are articles I likely wouldn't have created otherwise. They're great motivators—they're so ugly that they really drive you to squish 'em all. Unfortunately I don't have as much editing time as I'd like these days—I do most of my editing now during downtime between tasks, and building content requires a lot of overhead (finding, reading through, and digesting sources) that as often as not eats up my windows of opportunity before I can do significant expansion. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!12:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, if he were talking about anything other than MyPaedia, he would have said so after you brought it up to him by name ... and then I brought it up to him ... and then I brought it up again at the Arb case. No, you see that assumes he actually read our comments. And that would assume he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts even though he knew better. That would be an AGF violation. We should be assuming he was just too busy in real life to read our comments before responding to them, it would seem. ;-) Also, notice how he kept bringing up the "citing of a redlink" every time? It makes more sense to assume he was just ignoring us than to assume the redlink referred to my redlink to the hypothetical future article MyPaedia.
Regarding not having time to create content: I completely sympathize. Hopefully someday soon we will both be freer to work on building the encyclopedia than we have been of late...
I realize you're being sarcastic, but all comes back to the same point: no matter what angle you look at it (lying, or ignoring comments), he's acted in bad faith. And yes, all this horseshit is eating into my windows of opportunity as well (although I did manage to find time last week to quintuple or more the length of the Kusumoto Ine article. Unfortunately I seem to have exhausted my online sources and will have to get some physical ones to fill in the remaining gaps). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!14:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that thing for Asian-language wikis? I've made minor contributions to ja.wp before, but (a) I don't have confidence enough in my formal j-writing skills to really tackle anything, and (b) I haven't even had much time recently to contribute content to en.wp. Why, are you doing something? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!08:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... the work I did on Kusaka Genzui yesterday almost qualifies already, and I've been meaning to get some RSes from the library to create Seikenji [ja] for a while now. Maybe I'll give it shot. Too bad it wasn't next month instead—I've got a bunch of half-days at work then. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood the math—it looks like Genzui already qualifies. I might do a bunch of Kanō painters—I took out a couple of books a month or two ago to do just that, but I didn't find the time before it was time to bring back the books. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!00:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until reading the above exchange this evening I completely forgot about this. Or rather, I forgot how easy it would be to qualify. I guess I'll join in too. I've got a whole bunch of articles that need making and/or expanding. I would get working on Princess Nukata but that article doesn't appear to contain many disastrous errors, so it's just not as fun. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mie Castle? In the Ryūkyūs? Not that's not in the least confusing, is it? Even if I'd known form the start that WAM inculded en.wp, I was going to ignore it until prodded. I'm a bit マイペース, and am not great at heeding deadlines when there's not a paycheck involved. Probably won't take me more than two hours to finish off the quota, but I don't think I'll have the time today (though I'll probably try). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless I've mis-mathed it, I've already reached my quota. I'll probably still create another couple of Kanō articles while I've got the books out of the library. We keep talking about taking my father-in-law out for a trip to Okinawa—I still haven't been. Actually, I haven't been farther that way than Kyoto. I was going to visit Hiroshima with my mother and a friend of hers, but the trip was planned for March 2011, and ...
Ah good! Tomorrow I'm gonna make articles for a few Okinawan theme parks since they apparently don't have articles yet. I'm sure you'll enjoy visiting Okinawa if you ever have the time~ And yeah, I don't think either of them should get such a broad topic ban, but I guess it's out of our hands. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both know the reason for this (as I'm sure do Sturmgewehr88, Signedzzz, Nishidani...), but the question arises as to how to deal with it. I still want the article to become a GA, but that can't come to pass as long as every small step made to improve it is met with obscure criticisms, dodging if questions and bizarre personal comments, and otherwise requires tens of thousands of bytes of talk page non-discussion. I still think it's highly unlikely ArbCom will weigh in, but even if they did the only thing that's even been proposed is a one-month block with no long-term implications. A page ban, topic ban or site ban would solve the problem, but even after ArbCom closes it doesn't look like either you or I will be in a position to start an ANI discussion for a while... any ideas? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any faith in ANI—that place is a dungeon where the regulars wait in ambush to rape the orifices of those stupid enough to waltz in, not a forum for conflict resolution. If I had the time to devote to it, I'd simply like to work out the "Social issues" (or whatever) section and drop it in to the article—I don't think CurtisNaito would oppose it, at least not the way I have it envisioned (he hasn't opposed any of my other additions, and I think the merits of the section will be clear enough when they're worked out). I'd like to just cut off the discussion, but I'm afraid he'll choose to interpet that as meaning the article's done and then renominate it. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!05:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah: if he opposed our additions he would be forced to fight a losing battle against their inclusion, and he wouldn't be able to insist on taking sole credit for them later. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does. I've brought up more than once that he's a minority contributor. I only showed up to copyedit, and my own contributions are up to several paragraphs now. We should all be demanding credit, as well as credit for Oda Mari (whatever's happened to her). Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!08:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree File:Screenshot - Shunga Dynasty results.png
I wish we had more success luring GA writers to try for FA to give us more variety, but I don't think another graphic novel is too much. Your writing keeps it interesting. But it's not my call; pinging Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, the last graphic novel article was in August. That's a fair while ago. Hopefully A Contract with God doesn't draw the ... post-modernist post-modernism of Maus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Precious again, your Contract with God, an early English-level attempt to raise the maturity and art levels of the content of the graphic novel!
If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Oba Chandler. It is a article that I have edited a lot over the years. So any improvements etc are welcomed. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any reason for ill will here. I'm sincerely interested in working together with all users to improve the article. I promise you that I will respond to all concerns and will implement from now on any proposals that need to be implemented. I'm certain that we can bring the article to good level status by working together. If there's anything you think I can do, I will certainly do it or else allow other users to do it if others users would prefer to make the edits.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't visited comics related articles on the English Wikipedia for a long time. I had a very good surprise today in reading some of them, especially comics itself: while of course there are some stuff I don't agree with, or would have hierarchized differently, it's infinitely better than most articles on the French Wikipedia—I want to let you know your work will be thoroughly used to better it. Thank you! Encolpe (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Curly Turkey/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Oh my god, I just saw the most awesome video clip that's totally appropriate to the situation! Do the first two minutes of this remind you of anything? (Fair warning, the clip contains spoken allusions to mature content.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! But what is he distracting us from? Does he have some of of political agenda for fighting to the death over his claim that Murakami Haruki is representative of Shōwa-period science fiction? His motives are opaque. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just found your revision of my revision on the Chester Brown article. I removed that bit of information because it is already stated in another paragraph further down the page. I'd have created a link from the first paragraph to the second, and thus obliged readers who wanted more information on Brown's involvement in the LPC, if I knew how to insert a link to another part of the same page, but I don't. Can you tell me how? Mgushulak (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get it now, and it actually does work a lot better that way. I've re-removed it. I wonder if there's a source somewhere that tells why he didn't run in the last election ... Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!04:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states"
Iwane Matsui, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
ArbCom is considering making the statement of fact that I engaged in inappropriate canvassing in my dispute with CurtisNaito, when CurtisNaito routinely[17][18] calls on all possible members of the minority who have supported him in the past whenever he feels the community at large won't support him unless he can force through a SNOW in his favour first? 'Tis a crazy world we are living in... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly. Thanks for your messages on the talk page; parsing through all this has not been easy. I'm dropping this message here to let you know that while your frustration with Curtis's behavior is warranted, your behavior, like framing Curtis's contributions as poisonous ([19], [20]) and basically not taking anything he has to say seriously just doesn't sit well with me. Curtis's edits to the article have sometimes been problematic as has his approach to discussion around improvements. But it is disruptive to spend all this energy casting aspersions about Curtis' intentions. This remark about how he is messing with everyone's heads struck me as particularly unnecessary. There was also nothing wrong or disruptive with Curtis attempting to develop an RfC for the article. Yes, it needs to be framed appropriately, but all I saw from you was an attempt to shut that conversation completely down. You wonder why folks don't want to edit this article? It's not just Curtis's behavior that drives folks away from it. I know you and others are trying to look out for the article and it's been a real struggle, but this kind of engagement only fuels the fire. I, JethroBTdrop me a line01:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
parsing through all this has not been easy—I know, the endlessly repeating walls of words are an enormous part of the problem. For weeks after showing up I assumed Hijiri, Nishidani, Signedzz, et al. were at least as much to blame for the atmosphere as CurtisNaito, who I assumed was just a sloppy researcher. The closer one examines the problem the more one realizes things will not improve through discussion. CurtisNaito cannot be talked with—he resorts even to flat-out lying, which has been demonstrated—nor can he be left to his devices. I'd rather contribute content (check out my to-do list), but instead I'll be wasting my time in the new year putting the diffs together for a case. I wonder how many CurtisNaitos there are all over Wikipedia leeching time like this from productive content contributors ... Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!07:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This remark about how he is messing with everyone's heads struck me as particularly unnecessary.—I understand it appears that way from the outside. CurtisNaito has a knack for wording irrational deflective non sequiturs in seemingly reasonable and congenial tone. This is an enormous part of the problem—for the longest time he had me half-convinced. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!07:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, in case you haven't noticed, TH1980 has been adding the exact same material to another article, with pretty much the same problems. After he claimed he was leaving the History of Japan page because of the "hostile environment" created by everyone but him and CN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I remember why: I thought the article itself was redundant to both the Shōwa and Heisei articles and should be deleted, so I didn't see the point in fighting over an article that likely will disappear one of these days. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!04:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, God ... I strongly suspect that the article needs to be delisted given the problems that came up at the FAC and given Curtis's complete sourcing incompetence, but I don't have the energy to engage him on another front. I want to give up on History of Japan, but seriously, an article that important can't be left to Curtis Naito. With Matsui I don't feel it's so urgent. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!12:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an ANI case is going to be made, it needs to happen after ArbCom, otherwise AF and the Warlord of Mars will sink it. Also, if you're collecting diffs you can look on the Hijiri vs Catflap evidence page for some. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hijiri seems to have implied that I've started already, but I won't even start for a couple of weeks yet. I'll be too busy, and not just with holiday stuff. If you've got some juicy diffs prepared, let me know and I can work them in, but don't expect results too soon. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!03:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks both for your contributions to Wikipedia and also for being a valued friend and colleague. Very best wishes to you! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
; see Talk:Little Sammy Sneeze for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
. Do you eat it raw? Hafspajen (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 22:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
There is a Requested Move (article rename) discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)/Archives/2021/December#Requested move 30 January 2015. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Françoise Mouly for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Login required has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gadget850 talk 10:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
_View_of_Takanawa_Ushimachi_under_a_Shrouded_Moon.jpg){kind=spacer}
_View_of_Tokyo%27s_Shin-Ohashi_bridge_in_Rain.jpg)
_Year-end_Market_at_Sens%C5%8Dji_temple.jpg)
_Before_Tar%C5%8D_Inari_Shrine_at_the_Asakusa_Ricefields.jpg)
_Kudanzaka_at_Night_in_Early_Summer.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Konkai-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_K%C5%8Dshi_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Sumiyoshi_no_meigetsu-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Shinobugaoka_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Inabayama_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Shinkan_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_J%C5%8Dganden_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Y%C5%ABgao_dana_n%C5%8Dry%C5%8D_zu-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Natsu_no_y%C5%8D_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Waisui_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_J%C5%8Dga_hongetsu-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Hitotsuya_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Ench%C5%AB_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Goj%C5%8Dbashi_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Semimaru-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Matsuo_Bash%C5%8D-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Manosan_yowa_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Daimotsu_kaij%C5%8D_no_tsuki-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Sugawara_no_Michizane-.jpg)
_Tsuki_hyaku_shi_-_Tamausagi_songok%C5%AB-.jpg)
_-_Sen_no_Rikyu_-_Google_Cultural_Institute.jpg)
.jpg)
semla? Hafspajen (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
_Judenhass_00A_(Front_Cover).jpg)
_Judenhass_00B_(Inside_Front_Cover).jpg)
_Judenhass_01.jpg)
_Judenhass_02.jpg)
_Judenhass_03.jpg)
_Judenhass_04.jpg)
_Judenhass_05.jpg)
_Judenhass_06-07.jpg)
_Judenhass_08.jpg)
_Judenhass_09.jpg)
_Judenhass_10.jpg)
_Judenhass_11.jpg)
_Judenhass_12.jpg)
_Judenhass_13.jpg)
_Judenhass_14.jpg)
_Judenhass_15.jpg)
_Judenhass_16.jpg)
_Judenhass_17.jpg)
_Judenhass_18.jpg)
_Judenhass_19.jpg)
_Judenhass_20.jpg)
_Judenhass_21.jpg)
_Judenhass_22.jpg)
_Judenhass_23.jpg)
_Judenhass_24.jpg)
_Judenhass_25.jpg)
_Judenhass_26.jpg)
_Judenhass_27.jpg)
_Judenhass_28.jpg)
_Judenhass_29.jpg)
_Judenhass_30.jpg)
_Judenhass_31.jpg)
_Judenhass_32-33.jpg)
_Judenhass_34.jpg)
_Judenhass_35.jpg)
_Judenhass_36.jpg)
_Judenhass_37.jpg)
_Judenhass_38.jpg)
_Judenhass_39.jpg)
_Judenhass_40-41.jpg)
_Judenhass_42.jpg)
_Judenhass_43.jpg)
_Judenhass_44-45.jpg)
_Judenhass_46-47.jpg)
_Judenhass_48.jpg)
_Judenhass_49.jpg)
_Judenhass_50.jpg)
_Judenhass_51.jpg)
_Judenhass_52.jpg)
_Judenhass_53.jpg)
_Judenhass_54.jpg)
_Judenhass_55.jpg)
_Judenhass_56.jpg)
_Judenhass_57_(Inside_Back_Cover).jpg)
_Judenhass_58_(Back_Cover).jpg)
_It%27s_a_Good_Life,_If_You_Don%27t_Weaken_(page_124_panel_4).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_It%27s_a_Good_Life,_If_You_Don%27t_Weaken_(page_124_panel_5).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. --TL22 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
_en_Synagoge_(buitenzijde)_Rijksmuseum_SK-A-866.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_by_Matisse.jpg)
