User talk:gracefool/Archive 2004-2005

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou very much! I've been wondering how to sign my name! Gracefool 04:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Glad to be of service :D Sam [Spade] 04:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alan Blunt

Your edit is better- I know nothing about the character, so was just attempting to trim it to an appropiate stub. always be bold ;) Lyellin 11:19, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Nor do I, I just kept the useful info that was there (which I'm assuming is correct) ··gracefool 11:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

*chuckles* then let's hope. In regards to your questions, it's really a matter of style. Some users prefer to have a conversation all on the talk page that it started on. Others post replies on the other users talk page, so that the "new messages" message appears. Personally, I reply on the other's talk page, just so they know I've replied. Lyellin 11:33, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer being able to see the whole conversation at once - I'm hoping people check for replies - we should be able to ping users or something... ··gracefool 0:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it better to give the author the benefit of the doubt, and edit their writing rather than deleting it? ··gracefool 12:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and no. I guess what tipped it for me was that it was a jumbled mess, that sounded like it was from a kid. Reading it, it didn't sound very encyclopedic to me at all. Now, with what you have now, It's better. I still don't think it's encyclopedic enough to include, but I don't really a have a strong opinon either way. Lyellin 12:28, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

In other words, it wasn't worth the effort. I think I agree :/ ··gracefool 12:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Chuckles" well, I don't think it was nessecarily worth MY effort. Someone's, surely. Every article needs TLC Lyellin 12:38, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Captions

Thanks for coming over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions! We've spent some time coming up with guidelines for good captions following the examples set by various professional publications (National Geographic Magazine, a book I wrote a chapter in, BBC News, and so on) and combining those with the unique format of Wikipedia. While the captions on fractal were better than none at all, I think they're improved some since I tried writing new ones just now (though there's still plenty of room for improvement). Please let me know what you think, and if we need to change Wikipedia:Captions, let's be about it! I'm hoping you'll review more articles' captions soon. Thanks! -- ke4roh 12:03, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad, my eyes skipped past the critical page! ··gracefool 12:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Art categories

Hi,

I noticed that you have recently created some sub-categories in the visual arts. Can I also encourage you to join the categorisation discussion at Category talk:Art (to prevent an overly western perspective) -- Solipsist 20:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your kind greeting! I'm late by a whole week, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate it. :) Miss Puffskein 05:38, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Replied at deviantART. ··gracefool |☺ 06:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Library

Hi, Chris-- I recently added rather a lot of stuff to the Library article, and then left a note there in Talk asking other librarians in specialties other than mine to come and add more. I note that you've added the {{expansion}} note. I had thought about doing that, but the text of it seems to be intended as a cry for hell for stubs, which this article certainly isn't (and wasn't, long before I got to it). Is there a more appropriate way to do this? (I'll probably come back to this topic in a while anyway, but I've already embarked on a series of other articles, U.S./Texas Civil War stuff, that I want to get done first.) ---Michael K. Smith 16:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

{{expansion}} isn't just for stub - I think it's pretty much what you want, a request for people with knowledge about the subject to add material. I added it because it was listed on Wikipedia:Requests for page expansion (if it is there, it needs {{expansion}}). ··gracefool |☺ 06:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please check your facts

Regarding your statement from User talk:Mike Storm:

Um, you haven't stopped. ··gracefool |☺ 06:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you care to look at my contributions, you will find that I have stopped changing substub tags to stubs. Please look more carefully before insinuating that I haven't. --Michael Snow 15:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Michael Snow has stopped. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 16:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was talking about Herzog (game), ICO, Coyote Ugly, Batman Returns (video game), which you changed to stubs but have now changed back to substubs. Thanks. Thanks also for adding to Wikipedia:Substub#Real substubs in Wikipedia. ··gracefool |☺ 04:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Warhammer

Thanks for tidying up Warhammer :) ··gracefool |☺ 11:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still working on it :) Ausir 11:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guttenburg

Cheers for your efforts and comments after the cleanup message was posted on my article about the ship Guttenburg. I have looked at it again and can find no significant fault with it. What really pisses me of is NOT the presumption of some people that an article is in need of attention, but that the said persons who post such a notice have not the ability to make an effort themselves after noting a problem! What do you think? Faedra 10:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit sad. Sometimes its reasonable though, if someone is busy or working on something else when they stumble upon a page in need of cleanup - better to note it than just ignore it (as most probably do). ··gracefool |☺ 23:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

D&D God Symbols

At Shar (goddess) you changed "black" to "Black" with the reason "Regularised symbol capitalising". What's the reasoning behind this? ··gracefool |☺ 02:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put a capital letter at the beginning of the symbol description for all the gods, because it made it clear where the symbol description began and the text preceeding it ended. It's fair enough if you don't think it looks nice or whatever, but we then need another way to distinguish the symbol from the other bits. -Erolos 11:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why? You could create a List of symbols of deities or something if you want to separate that information. Otherwise I don't see why it's necessary. ··gracefool |☺ 20:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

/.

I'm guessing you're a reader of Slashdot, having added "The Spyware Inferno" to Spyware so quickly ;) ··gracefool |☺ 19:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yep, Slashdot is a pretty useful source for info to use here, though I'm usually beaten to the punch by someone else. Finally I got here first! :) -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:14, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (film)

Hi Chris. Please don't create joke articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. Angela . 02:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004

You may be interested in a last-ditch attempt to save User:Pgreenfinch's endangered article European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 which is on a subpage page of VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004. Because this is a subpage it may not be noticed by those scanning the regular VfD page. Recent votes to keep appear to be sock-puppets or people who have become users only to support this article. You may wish to add your vote or comments or both. Jallan 13:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

D&D creature categories

Hi. I have replied to your question about D&D creatures on my talk page. DJ Clayworth 16:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lolth's Categories

See Talk:Lolth - thanks. :) -Erolos 23:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Boots of speed

From your edit comment:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game reference. Check out Wikibooks:Main Page"

I'm well aware of current policies on What Wikipedia is not. It is not excluded on the basis of that page, nor is it excluded by precedence: The item "Boots of speed" is far more famous than a particular Pokémon, and it is generally accepted that Wikipedia can (and does, in most cases) have a page on each.

A Google search reveals 6,440 mentions of "boots of speed".

In any case, I didn't write Boots of speed as a game reference, but as an encyclopaedic article. I even included a mention of boots of speed in historical folklore (which I intend to expand).

··gracefool |☺ 05:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many people do not agree with the Pokemon entries either. Check out what's being said about D&D articles on this Vote for deletion page - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bulls strength. -- Netoholic (Talk) 05:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented there. This is a general policy that really needs to be made clear. ··gracefool |☺ 05:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You would probably not run into so much resistance if you would consolidate the articles into a List of magical items in Dungeons & Dragons or somesuch. The problem is that so many mini-articles are difficult to deal with. -- Netoholic (Talk) 05:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Policy discussion continued at Wikipedia:Importance. ··gracefool |☺ 08:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi. Just a little request - please write something in the edit summary box when you edit a page - eg. "fixed link" or something. This means people who are watching a page you edit can see what you've done without having to view the page. Thanks.

Oh, and nice homepage, BTW! :) ··gracefool |☺ 07:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I usually do add comments... usually... mmm, maybe not for minor edits... but the checkbox had taked a leave of absence this morning...? Ant

D&D stuff

Nice to meet another WikiD&D fan. Thanks for the heads up to the policy article. I checked it out and posted, but not sure what else I'm supposed to do. Revising all those articles today has worn me out. I must sleep. :) -Erolos 23:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. See you around :) ··gracefool |☺ 23:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greek mythology

Ok, so what is this all about?

05:53, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) List of creatures of Greek mythology (redirect) (New) 
05:53, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) List of Greek creatures (mythology) (redirect) (New) 
05:52, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) List of creatures of Greek Mythology (redirect) (New) 
05:52, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) List of Greek creatures (redirect) (New) 
05:51, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) List of Creatures of Greek Mythology (redirect) (New) 
05:51, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) Greek mythological characters (redirect) (New) 
05:50, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) Greek Mythological characters (redirect) (New) 
05:49, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) Greek Mythological creatures (redirect) (New) 
05:49, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) Greek mythological creatures (redirect) (New) 
05:48, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) Creatures of Greek Mythology (redirect) (New) 
05:48, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) Creatures of Greek mythology (redirect) (New) 
05:47, 27 Aug 2004 (hist) List of Greek mythological creatures (split from List of Greek mythological characters) (New)

Are you of the opinion that your choice of article name is the best one, and that you just want to make it a pain-in-the-ass for other editors in case they disagree? -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'd prefer "List of Creatures of Greek Mythology", but I was following the template of the other lists. I created the redirects so if people didn't like the title they could link to it using a title they did like... If you really want to change it, I've found that marking a redirect for speedy deletion results in it being deleted pretty quickly. ··gracefool |☺ 06:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem I have is that by creating redirects like Greek mythological creatures to the list, you are limiting future development. List of Greek mythological creatures is by definition simply a list. Now, suppose someone wanted to expand that list into a full article (by adding a nice long introduction, etc.). The "list of" name would no longer appropriate and they'd seek to move it to something else (maybe Greek mythological creatures). Because these redirects are already in their way, they may not be able to do it as easily. And even if they did move it (with admin help), someone would have to go back and fix all those original redirects. In short, I'd recommend that creating a dozen redirects is not the best option. -- Netoholic @ 12:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll be more careful about the redirects I create from now on. ··gracefool |☺ 01:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caption

Thanks for reminding me of the need for descriptive captions (as in Sodalite), mine was rubbish! I'll try to remember your example for the future! - Adrian Pingstone 08:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:) Thanks for your pictures! ··gracefool |☺ 11:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Importance

My opinion, but I think you are taking a small sub-grouping of WP articles (ones based on fictional settings), and trying to write a broader policy which you intend to use to bypass normal review process of their value. It also appears to be too prescriptive, and is really not very accurate. It is not very distnctive, and reads just like a re-hash of existing policy, with a few out-of-context quotes, like the one from Jimbo. -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Importance. ··gracefool |☺ 08:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism

Re your recent message "Don't vandalise wikipedia" at User talk:12.73.161.196 - the user's two edits could have been misguided tests rather than purposeful vandalism. It's much better to give new users the benefit of the doubt rather than scaring them away - use {{test}}:

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

··gracefool |☺ 23:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think I've been here longer than you, and I know what to do with vandals. I use the test template when it's justified, but this user's case didn't justify it. And don't delete other people's comments off Talk pages. RickK 23:09, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- 1. The point of this comment was to explain why I deleted your comment
  2. Maybe the test template isn't "justified", but isn't it still better to be nice, and give the benefit of the doubt?
  3. This is especially important with the common bug where anonymous users are referred to talk pages of other anonymous users - your message could potentially be given to other users, and the nicer it is, the less likely they will be scared off by it.
- ··gracefool |☺ 23:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick - just a quick note to say that I think you should take gracefool's advice in the spirit it was intended- (i.e friendly advice not having a go at you). We all need advice from others now and then no matter how long we have been here. I deal with quite a few vandals and I always put a friendy message first (even when deep down I know they are scumbags who should be shot!) Theresa Knott (The token star) 00:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox table

Hi Richard, thanks for prettifying the Mozilla Firefox table! ··gracefool |☺ 22:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey there, no problem about doing some tidying of the Firefox "release history" table.

I'm always looking for ways to help out the mozilla firefox community / product, and just doing my bit.

Thanks for changing the green colour to something better.

Hey, just thinking.. If you wanna help Firefox out, you could always place one of the Firefox promotional buttons on your User Talk page, that's what I'm going to do. Every little helps :)

RichCorb 08:19, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, good idea. I already advertise Firefox on my site and have a page on Firefox extensions & customizations!

You should probably stick to that Firefox logo you're using now, and don't add the promotional buttons, because you shouldn't upload images that aren't going to be used in an article. ··gracefool |☺ 09:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion

What's this about a duplicate content bugfix? Your recent edit deleted several days worth of discussions outright--I didn't even recognize the page when I saw it. --Ardonik.talk() 06:16, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Every day on the page was repeated... it's a bug that happens every now and then. ··gracefool |☺ 19:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page looks okay now. Not sure what happened. --Ardonik.talk() 20:25, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

People you have greeted ... me !

Hey Gracefool, just thought I'd let you know that the date you have me down as joining on your 'people I've greeted' page is incorrect. I actually started my account on August 8th, 2003. Thanks though :-) RichCorb 16:55, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you, corrected :) Feel free to edit stuff like that yourself, few people would mind even though it's their userpage. ··gracefool |☺ 22:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vagueware

Hey, i listed Vagueware in vfd, but in a google search i noticed that you are a member of that site! So, i thought you might have some more knowledge about it, and could possibly salvage the article. Just thought you might like to know :D [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. Actually, the vagueware wiki is dead now, but the article probably should've been deleted anyway. ··gracefool |☺ 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tips page

Hey there, this is a way-belated reply to your August comment about my Tips page. I'm sorry to say I didn't notice it until now, sometimes I'm completely blind to pages on my watchlist :-/ Anyways I'm glad you found the bookmark thing helpful, I use it all the time. Also, thanks for pointing me to your extensions page, I've only got Tabbrowser Extensions and All-in-One gestures, and the newish Wikipedia one installed, so I'll definately check out some of the ones you suggest. As for tabbed versus window in Wikipedia, I'm sure it is a matter of preference, I just find it easier on my brain to switch between tabs for some reason (: —siro χ o 08:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Thanks, all my contributions are multi-licensed. Keep up the good work. ··gracefool |☺ 02:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pinball construction set box cover image

Hi, Gracefool. I noticed that you upload the Image:Pinball_construction_set_box.jpg. You mention where you got it from, but you didn't mention if you actually had permission to use it. As a matter of fact, it looks like GameSpy (where you got it from) nabbed it from MobyGames, so it's been bandied about quit a bit. So you may need to get MobyGames' permission to use the image. Though cover images are covered under fair use, when lifted from someone else's site, we still need their permission. Please check with those you lifted it from, and, if you receive permission, please post that information on the image page. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to ask permission? Does MobyGames own the image? Aren't they also using fair use? ··gracefool |☺ 09:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, let's just continue the discussion here—we don't want to have to update the conversation in two places. :-)

Second, yes, MobyGames was using the image under fair use, but—and this is a sticky issue—we can't just lift the image from their site and use it and claim "fair use." If you yourself took a scan of the cover of the game and uploaded it to Wikipedia, it would be fair use and we could use it. To use MobyGames' scan of the cover, we'd have to get their permission. If you think I'm mistaken (it's happened once or twice before), you can see Wikipedia's image "fair use" considerations and Wikipedia:Fair_use. HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's actually not true, thanks to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. The only copyright on that image belongs to the company that made the game. --SPUI (talk) 13:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SPUI. By the way, MobyGames never answered my email requesting permission. ··gracefool |☺ 03:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure the question is a strictly legal one. I think there is a standard that requires one to site the proper source and get permission when appropriate. In this case I would be inclined to get permission. --Flipkin 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as SPUI said, it's not necessary in this case. But because of that standard, I did attempt to get permission. ··gracefool |☺ 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure trying is the same as getting. Also Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is a very narrow ruling and is not binding. I am not a lawyer, but my wife is in her second year of law school. From what I understand Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is a precedent but it has not yet been recognized by any appellate jurisdiction. Also the images in the case are public domain and not copyrighted material under 'fair use'. Really until someone decides to sue it is really up in the air. The whole idea behind asking ( and getting ) permission is so no one gets sued.--63.212.164.226 03:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images and media for deletion

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicit photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 04:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (song)

Last August you moved this song to a new article, but when you did it, you didn't carry with it its page history. please in the future be sure to use the MOVE function rather than copying and pasting. just a little heads up. Kingturtle 08:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was no move function for non-admin users back then. ··gracefool |☺ 03:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Automatic Archival Notification

Hi, by the suggestion of User:Radiant!, I am in the progress of programming a bot that will remove any project listed within Category:WikiProjects, and place {{inactive}} at the top of the page should the page has not been edited within a period of 6 months and the discussion page has not been edited for 2 months. If you have any objections, please let me know on my userpage. This notification is because you have a WikiProject that resides on your own User space. As I prefer not to touch people's user spaces, I would very much like your input in the matter. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the page from Category:WikiProjects, though it's inactive anyway. ··gracefool |☺ 08:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleavage

I thought it was fine, perhaps I allowed my pov to intrude... Intrigue 22:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol, it was a very POV statement. ··gracefool |☺ 23:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Race and IQ POV

Could you help removing the bias in the Race and intelligence article? The current editors seem to have difficulties identifying what may be wrong with it. Arbor 15:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia:categorization

Hi - user:Ashley Y has posted a question at wikipedia talk:categorization which I think is actually directed to you. I could make a guess, but I think it might be better if you answer it yourself. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch :) ··gracefool |☺ 01:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You haven't commented on the further discussion. I'm OK with where it is now, but just wanted to let you know you might want to comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Astral plane?

Hi there! Two questions about the astral plane category... first, I'm not sure that 'plane' is a proper noun (although google seems to think so), could you please doublecheck in Manual of the Planes or something? Second, those god-isles the githyanki use are, well, strange and all, but they're not astral planes. They're part of the astral plane, or floating in it, or something like that. So maybe a different name for the category would be more appropriate? Yours, R adiant _>|< 12:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I've changed it to Category:Astral plane. The category is about astral-plane related things, rather than astral planes (if indeed there is more than one - AFAIK there's only one per se). ··gracefool |☺ 05:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

#60

I recently asserted that to qualify as a good category, it (a category) should have at least 60 articles (or the chance that 60 articles could be written for any given category), an assertion I based on something someone said a while back in, I believe, a CfD discussion. I have been asked to provide a guideline that says such a thing, and upon searching, not only can I find no such guideline, I can't find where I first read that, and the WP search system leaves a great deal to be desired. Any help you could proffer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Tomer ^TALK 23:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

CFD 2005 news

As someone who voted for the deletion of Category:2005 news and/or Category:2004 news, I'd like to point you to this discussion regarding their deletion (or, I guess, remind you of it since you already posted there). Apart from the "politeness" aspect of my listing the categories without first consulting their original creator (usually I do so, but this time I didn't), I'm wondering if you have any second thoughts given what you read there, or if you wanted to weigh in with your own opinions or questions. - dcljr (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes without reasons are ignored in AFD

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henley Management College. Please note that *some* admins in some article-for-deletion votes, will discount your vote, if you don't include a reason. The reason can be as short as a two-letter abbrev, but some reason is needed. --rob 19:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, I didn't realise that. ··gracefool |☺ 22:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo

Hi, you may want to list a rationale for your keep vote, in order to make sure it is counted in the tally. Thanks, 205.217.105.2 21:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midway games

The category name was correct before you changed it. "Midway games" means "games made by Midway". All the game categories are of the form "* games". I guess it would be okay to create "Midway Games games" as a subcat of "Midway games". Mirror Vax 01:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I see. This highlights an issue with the current categorisation scheme - see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#Screwed up categories. ··gracefool |☺ 03:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image use policy

Eeek! Don't suggest to people that they should reduce the quality of their uploaded files. Since almost all our images are now server-side thumbnailed, a change in the jpeg quality won't have much impact at all on the file size of the image in an article. We always want free image uploads in the most perfered form for modification and reuse, which is usually the highest resolution/quality. --Gmaxwell 15:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but there's no reason not to compress PNGs (since it doesn't hurt image quality). Also animations are in issue for many, eg. those with slow connections. I'm not saying don't upload them; just don't include big ones in the article. ··gracefool |☺ 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, preparing images for upload covers how to use pngcrush and such. It's a good thing, Though most of that is just going to be effectively undone when the images are resized to meet article requirements. As for animations, they too are resized for display. For example, while Image:Xenon-flash.gif is pretty big the resized version that you get when you visit the article is about 30k. --Gmaxwell 22:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

coercive monopoly

Hi. Since you participated in the AfD for coercive monopoly, you might be interested in the major rewrite I just did. I'm sure there will be considerable discussion ensuing, and a cool head such as yours would be useful. Rd232 11:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand

Hi, You might want to consider adding {{User NZ res}} to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Onco_p53 07:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate CapItalIzAtiOns

I've got to ask about the usefullness of having tons of alt spelling redirs for Microsoft Products. Your thaughts? Xaosflux 03:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not very useful, but generally all redirects are good as long as they don't create confusion and follow the wikipedia guidelines, since they help users find pages and are also useful for disambigs if someone wants to create an article with the same name as a redirect. ··gracefool 04:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, they may even clear some Red Links Xaosflux 04:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gracefool, I'm not in the mood for a RV war, and I see you've done alot of good work here. Regarding your edit: "Lawful evil is methodical, intentional, and frequently successful devotion to selfishness or evil itself." How is an evil creature any more selfish than a neutral animal? If you can't think of a good answer, please consider deleting the 'selfishness' part. Rearden Metal 01:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Forgotten Realms project

Hi,

We are working on a Forgotten Realms Project to map Toril (mostly Faerûn, at the present). Since you contributed quite a lot on a Forgotten Realms-specific entry, we'ld like to invite you to join the project, so we could improve the “Mapping the Realms” project.

The goal is to create a sort of World Factbook for the Realms. This means:

A consistent content
Use of templates
Entries should be limited to “sovereign places”: states and free cities, as well a moderately-inhabited place such as the Western Highlands.

On top of this, we also plan to cover Lost Empires, such as Pelvuria or Imaskar and, of course, Netheril

The project is located here
The Geographical index of Toril is a good start to get a visual of had been done, as well as the Halruaa entry.

Main contributors are presently

David Latapie (founder)
Poulsen

If you know some other person who would be interested, feel free to forward the invitation!

Feel free to take a look. We hope to see you soon mapping the Realms with us!

Refs?

Hello, any chance of adding refs to Petone? Cheers, Lupin|talk|popups 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]