User talk:Izno/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Izno, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Katr67 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wee

Omg, an admin finally felt good enough to post this on my page!. I congratulate ye! ;p--Izno 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Nope, I'm not an admin. Just an editor like everyone else. I saw your edit on the Washington Park Railway and I try to welcome new people who edit Oregon articles. Cheers! Katr67 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! That was just a random edit; god knows why I even clicked on the link in the first place. xD. I'm not exactly new to wikis; I'm very familiar with Wowwiki actually... >_>--Izno 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to WoWwiki

No, it's a way to start getting rid of the player tips. You're welcome to revert your edit. - Denimadept (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WoW simplification

Was that just to make the article simpler, or was there some other reason to remove existing links? - Denimadept (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond at T:WoW. --Izno (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter slur

Hi, I would like to apologize for the actions committed under my username to Ronald Reagan. I am currently at a Memorial Day party and did not sign out of my account, enabling my brother to vandalize the page. I am sorry for the trouble. You will see that I am an experienced editor, as well as a main editor of the page, and am committed to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of account on fr.wp

The name "Izno" has been freed on fr.wp for you. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was me, and you're welcome ^^ Blinking Spirit (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment.

Thanks for the visit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Inuse}} on World of Warcraft

Thanks for swapping out that tag - I knew there was something I'd forgotten to do when I finished my editing session last night. I'm hoping to get the Development, Pricing and Legacy sections sorted out next, before finally moving on to Setting and Gameplay. Once that's done, we can get the content from the Criticism article sorted out. Let me know how you think it's going, or if there's anything I've missed. Many thanks! Gazimoff ^Write _Read 10:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse! Goatse! Goatse!

Hi. Would [1] satisfy your call for reliable sources with substantial coverage?--Fangz (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MU* task force

What exactly do they cover then? I thought it was multi-user anything correct? So wouldn't anything that fell under WP:MMOG be multi-user? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Thanks for explaining, MrKIA11 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD misunderstanding

I think I misunderstood about what you were saying about the task force memberlist. I thought you were implying for a while that task forces shouldn't monitor members but was instead claiming that they shouln't have their own subpages; in that case I do agree. BTW, I speedy-merged the Nintendo memberlist into the left panel of the page itself. MuZemike (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you edited my user page?

Hi, I don't mind at all, so don't take this as any kind of problem please. I use my user page to remind me of things and where to locate them and so forth. You did this edit, [2] with saying you were uncategorizing. Did I make a mistake? All I would like to know is the error you found so that I don't do it again. I am not the best of editors but I am always willing to learn and I don't mind being corrected at all. I just don't understand the difference you made. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the quick response, I understand, sorry for the extra work, I didn't know. I appreciate any fixes I need, hopefully I won't need anymore anytime soon! ;) Thanks again for your kind explanation and quick response, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to WoWWiki in Warcraft (series)

Correct me if wrong, but I believe interwiki links qualify as external links and should therefore go at the end of an article (despite their intrawiki-style links). Maybe you know? I for one don't like to be unwittingly linked to a different Wiki project like this. I have reverted myself in the meantime.--Atlan (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Deathmatch

Hi, I saw you merged this article - did you discuss the merge beforehand? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cad monarchy template

That was one of the cutest edit summaries evar. I approve of your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :D Prince of Canada^{t | c} 06:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image from MMO RPG

OK, so what is rational for removing the image? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8, which was quite prominent in the edit history, if not linked. --Izno (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what you refer? (I am learning :)). "8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I can understand it did not _significantly_ add to the topic. Cheers. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lightmouse & WoW

You realize that lightmouse is a bot right? No matter how often you revert it, lightmouse is a mindless program and will continue to remove the 1994 link in line with the wikipedia policy that it enforces. You can't win. Just saying... :) Timmccloud (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! :D

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me with my barnstar syntax! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 05:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl request

I'd like it if you would withdraw the RFA for me with my consent. Maybe you're right. AdirondackMan (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a joke

The edit I made wasn't a joke; perhaps in the future you'll get the difference though. Thanks! 92.236.246.150 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Like your sarcasm, though if you cannot think of a mature reply; I wouldn't reply at all. Thanks! 92.236.246.150 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:FICT

As I wrote there:

I'm sorry I thought this was a poll, not a discussion where we can question each others rationals underneath each other, if that is the case, I will start commenting above too. Kraftlos, Izno please refactor out your comments to the above support section, not here. You can remove my comments too.Ikip (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No fun

Heh, I'm in a "no fun" mode during February, I'm compiling a summary of the WP:RfA Review answers and I've got a bunch of "RFA wisdom" in my head that keeps leaking out before it's ready. (I want to make sure the final product is put together by everyone who added something to the mix, not just me, but that means I can't talk about it ... arg.) One thing that's been said a few times (including by crats) is "Don't talk about the odds we're going to hit 100"; talking about RFA as a "race to win" has generated some friction in the past. (That's an example of something I can't say ... oops, just said it :) Watchlisting. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little something for you...

		The Lonely Geek Barnstar
		This barnstar is in honor of your depressing, unloved presence on IRC on Valentine's Day, 2009. Roses and kisses work for some, but you, noble Wikipedian, have important things to discuss on the internet with people you barely know who you'll probably never meet. Here's to you! FlyingToaster 20:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

Please go read the RfC discussion before you edit. Your edit summary shows that you have not, since in it you ask what the result of the discussion was. One of the results was the realization that there are tons of free logos that can be used in place of non-free images. See the list at WP:FBS logos. See how the bulldog, which is a copyrighted image, is no longer present, it is just a letter Y. Also, the Harvard shield qualifies since it is just a letter H and a simple shield shape, it is also not subject to copyright.--2008Olympian^chitchat 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what I mean. Consensus has not been reached on the use of non-free images in sporting articles, and I did not mean to in any way imply that it had. These images, however, are not non-free images. They are free replacements, and are not currently at issue. That is something that developed from the discussion as a way of removing a lot of the current problem. Not every school has a free logo alternative and there are also some pro articles that use non-free images, such as Cowboys-Redskins rivalry, that are also part of that discussion, however, so the larger debate goes on. But it is not about these two, free articles. --2008Olympian^chitchat 04:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please see User_talk:2008Olympian#The_Game. Hope this helps, The Helpful One 12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say "(free or non-free, whatever the case)" shows that you have zero understanding of the debate about non-free images. Whatever. No matter what is the result of any of the dispute resolution, these free images will not be addressed. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be involved.--2008Olympian^chitchat 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed with 83 ayes to the right, one no to left and five abstaining users!
We didn't quite hit 100 as you predicted though! Sabre (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image question

You mean the move to [[File:]] rather than [[Image:]]? I'm afraid I don't know. January, I think. -- Sabre (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that. I'm sorry, I haven't a clue when that was introduced. It just seemed appropriate for a navbox image. -- Sabre (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructible magazines

Hey, you said here that you could provide some print sources for this article. You also said to nag on you about it if you didn't get to it in a timely matter. So here I am, nagging. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

I have begun an RFC over the lyrics dispute at Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara. If you could comment here, that would be appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re.

Yeah, that's me, but if you want to discuss that wiki (e.g. point out some local policy to me or something), please keep all discussion on my talk page over there, thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of discussing that wiki here. Was just making sure a connection was there. Cheers. --Izno (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins, Bologna Center

Hi Izno, I was wondering if you would agree to remove the merge suggest for the article on the Bologna Center of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. I am a former alumus of the school and can confirm that although the MA degree program is integrated with the Washington DC campus, the Bologna Center is still definitely very much an independent institution, administered separately and with its own degree programs, both on its own with the one year bologna center diploma, and runs joint degree programs with other European Universities. The Bologna center is certainly notable and its resident and visiting professors are globally known in their fields.^[1] ^[2]. I also enclose this article from the New York Times published in 1984 that features the Bologna Center.^[3] Cesariano (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that a couple of paragraphs in the merge target would strengthen it, however would the optimum solution not be to have a section in the target article that redirects to this article using the {{main}} tag. I personally do not understand why this would not have its own article as it is one of the most important educational institutions for international affairs in Europe, and as I said before a separate entity from the campus in Washington with its own permanent faculty and intellectual identity. Afterall I think one could make the comparison with colleges at Oxford or Cambridge, all of whom have their own articles and none of which award degrees independently of their respective Universities. Cesariano (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, Thanks for pointing out summary style, I was unaware of that.

My point about Oxford and Cambridge colleges was that they all have separate articles, yet they are fully integrated into the University, and do not award their own degrees or run their own degree programs. The Bologna Center on the other hand does award its own degrees and run its own programs and therefore should be considered more of an independent institution than a college.

With regard to my claim that it is one of the most important institutions in its field in Europe. I make this argument based on the many high profile figures involved with the school, either to give speeches, or as professors or as trustees. The current advisory council includes as honory members, the former president of the European Commission Romano Prodi.^[4]. Speakers at the center in recent years have included the President of Italy. Alumni include a former acting director of the CIA, and the current European Commissioner for Enlargement Michael Leigh. Cesariano (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Template:NYRepresentatives

Please see notice of proposed technical fix at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm it's you

Hi, can you confirm it was you who signed up for The Wikipedia Forum with username Izno? Thanks! dottydotdot (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, activated! dottydotdot (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

guideline discussion

I'm contacting a few people who took an interest in the video games WikiProject guidelines last year, to let them know of a project I'm working on. It's strictly in the interest of collecting information, but I think that information could prove useful for refining our guidelines and policies.

Please check in at this discussion, if you find a moment. Thanks in advance, Randomran (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for checking in at the discussion. How long are you gonna be busy with finals? No pressure. Randomran (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm in the same boat. In fact, I'm starting summer term as I write this. Ugh. Take a break :) Randomran (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DQ Archive

I fail to see where on that page dictates that the talk page archive belongs as a subpage of WP:VG talk. My move was to maintain consistency at Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix/Archive, which follows the pattern of leaving the talk archives under their original talk page names/archive locations. Please WP:AGF. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary ("Sigh, no. The WP was deleted") seemed unnecessarily WP:BITEy and didn't really include any explanation as to why you reverted my move. Your terse messages on my talk page seemed no better. I don't see what's wrong with leaving it where it is right now, so let's not belabor the point. Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to move all 38 other archived talk pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/Archive as well, be my guest. If you have issue with the way I communicate, please be out in the open about it, rather than accusing me of "talking down" to you. I apologize if you read any condescension into my words. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wells'" or "Wells's"?

Hello Izno. In your revision of "The War of the Worlds", as of 22.20, 15 June 2009, you reverted a number of edits by an anonymous editor, changing "Wells's" back to "Wells'" and advising: "check your grammar there, anon.." Would you please tell me what authority you would quote to support using this form of the possessive case? I consulted a number of sources for guidance and usage (all UK English), including The Oxford guide to English Usage, Eric Partridge's "Usage and Abusage", Encyclopaedia Britannica and The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. All used "Wells's", or stated that nouns ending in s have 's added for the singular possessive. Wells's own "Experiment in Autobiography" has, for instance, (Henry)"James's". Regards. Mabzilla (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I note that you've also discussed the matter with Sparf on the "War of the Worlds" talk page and that he's made a gracious (temporary?) withdrawal. I have now made more careful study of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and intend to add something to the "War of the Worlds" talk page.Mabzilla (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.

Hi Izno. Please take a look at this post in the talk page of H.A.W.X.. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I protest on Olaf's redirection

Hello, Mr. Izno. How are you? See, I'm sorry for undoing your redirection of the Blizzard Entertainment's video game character Olaf the Stout's article on Wikipedia, but there is some reason. Please, don't redirect this article. I've done a lot of hard work on it and you see that your doubt on Olaf's notability is wrong. He is a notable character of Blizzard Entertainment, because he has made cameo appearances in the company's games, more than anyone else, so he deserves an article. He has made more cameo appearances than his fellow Vikings and the other characters of the company. He has gained popularity of his own as a solo character, especially after he appeared in Rock 'N' Roll Racing (1993). --The Gamer of Games (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: template:game-icons

Whoops im sorry, overlooked the usage of the template, i thought it was just a blanked page. And my bad for being lazy with the edit summary. Ive removed the template inclusions now, so is it good to go? Salavat (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh i replaced the template with the category and then User:seresin deleted it before you replied. Salavat (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Support for Batista

You say "knock it off". I don't understand. You said the article should reflect consensus. Please see the state of the talk page Talk:Fidel_Castro#US_Support_for_Batista. My edit produces a phrase that we all agree on. Without it there is not consensus, and additionally there is a failure of User:Redthoreau to respond to the key questions I have asked. Why should the article not be changed to say something we can all agree on, especially since User:Redthoreau is still dodging the key question that bears on his preferred phrasing? Note that each time I have made this change I have done so after waiting for a response from User:Redthoreau. As long as there have been responses, I have delayed making any changes. When he fails to respond at all, I feel I have the right to make this change. Am I wrong about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, Sure, I don't mind giving him a week. (I don't recall running into this as a rule of thumb before...) I must say, however, that the idea that a controversial phrasing should be maintained during the discussion seems odd to me: that natural thing would be to adopt the phrasing that everyone acknowledges is both correct and informative. Cerberus (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, Come on now, that is not so. What would be "incorrect" after my proposed change? And of course the sentence would still be informative. The only thing in dispute is whether it adds information or is misleading to include the phrase "US backed" in the lead as currently. User:Redthoreau argues it adds information, while I argue that it is so misleading it subtracts information. As you know, while it took a bit of pushing, User:Redthoreau conceded my core factual claims on the talk page. (I thought you had indicated earlier that you understood this state of affairs.) Cerberus (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cataclysmic vandalism

Hey, it lasted over 40 minutes! Whoa! - Denimadept (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(weak humor please forgive me)

"uncollased" - Probably something to do with a Hunter's weapon getting out of alignment. :)

On a (well only sortof) serious note, you beat me to that one, I was looking at some really ... dubious... work by an anon elsewhere. Thanks for fixerizing things! :) - sinneed (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betting on 1st-letter-check... maybe 1st 2 letters. If it were I, I would have used only the "U" and "C" unless there were other options. :)- sinneed (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For improving Hazel Walker. I wish that thought had occurred to me, but I guess this is why we collaborate. I just made a similar change to Billie Moore, only one such instance, but it will help me to remember it in the future. --SPhilbrick T 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I knew I had a better example - Nera White, where I collapsed five refs to two.--SPhilbrick T 23:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA notification

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Improper_terminology_at_Butterfly_stroke. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.--Pharos (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"research paper" templates

We were discussing an appropriate template to mark Organic solar cells as an article that was written more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article. The ones I think would be appropriate for that article are {{technical}} and {{cleanup-jargon}} -- it's not the structure or tone of the article that bothers me so much as the incomprehensible terminology. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		"The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to help other editors in a profound way." This barnstar is awarded to Izno. Thank you so much for your selfless help. Editors such as yourself is what makes wikipedia great. Ikip (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your welcome :) Ikip (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro

I added the references for Fidel's other daughter, Francisca Pupo. Callelinea (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! --Izno (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Kotick

Just noting that I've partly reverted some edits you made today on this article, and suddenly worried by actions/edit summary might come off as hostile. So I thought I'd drop by and offer a friendly hello, and indicate my appreciation for your work in creating the article and continuing to hold it to appropriate standards in the face of (prior to the protect) a very high degree of vandalism. Feel free to let me know what I can do to further improve the article, and particularly whether my improvements to the reverted reference have helped. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WoW guy!

		The Warcraft Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Warcraft Barnstar for your aid in all things Warcraft. Keep up the good work! IatachiRedbloomFur (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clumsy fingers

Thanks for undoing my accidental reversion. I have explained at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Basically, it's very easy to press random buttons when using an iPhone. I tried to undo it myself, but by the time I'd typed an edit summary on the tiny keyboard, you'd already done it.. Since the iPhone won't let me type in a normal edit box (edit summaries only), I've had to load up my desktop to explain that I haven't suddenly become a rogue admin. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that I have missed some humour in your message on my talk page? On face value it comes over as aggressive, but I assume that this can't be the case. Could you explain your comment for me, please? The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spelling it out to me. The frequent edits to my page like the ones following your last message have made everything sound aggressive! The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piolet

CC: Before I make changes, I thought I'd let you know, the redirect for Piolet to an "Ice Axe" has broken links all over the internet/BitTorrent/FileShairing pages of Wikipedia, and has killed external inbound links coming from off-site articles, including direct links from Google. I'll be setting this to a disambiguation page within the next 24 hours so that there's atleast a stopgap for this issue. Lostinlodos (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft 3 edit.

Since I did not want to start an edit war, I have moved this here, so as to discuss with you. If you want, you may move said article to my talk page or the talk page of the article, Warcraft 3, Reign of Chaos, so as too not show this to other people. Firstly, I respect your position as part of the Warcraft task force, of which I have no part in, but want to join and hope I will. Regarding my change of the caption of the picture from Orcish to Orc in the article listed above. You would not say Humanish, but Human, not Undeadish, but Undead. Not Night Elfish, or Elfish, but Night Elven or Elven. Sincerly, Buggie111 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nts and sortable tables with negative numbers

{{Nts}} breaks with negative numbers and it interferes with sorting in sortable tables. I have undone your recent change to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009. For what it's worth, I didn't know nts didn't handle negative numbers either. I found this while investigating the broken sorting in the table you modified. Learn something new every day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info!

Thought documentation had to be transcluded. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Izno (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello! Your comment here seems to be okay with a merge. Please note that myself and others have actively and simultaneously been working to improve both the article under discussion and the main game article. Would you by chance be so kind as to amend your stance to compromise for the sake of a merge and redirect? Some content had already been merged several months ago and one of the merged to locations actually got a DYK. Thank you for your time and consideration and I hope that you are having a Merry Christmas! P.S. I am writing here as I don't know if you have the discussion watchlisted. Please note as well that the afd started while Talk:Manon_Batiste#Merge_suggestion was still underway. Thanks again and Happy Holidays to your family! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EL and Wikia Links

The large bulk of wikia links fail WP:EL, including the Riddick one. Please stop restoring a bad link to the articles. They are already in bad enough shape without throwing shout outs to a bad fansite. Further, per guidelines, if you feel the link meets EL then you need to get consensus to get it added back, rather than just edit warring over it. The link fails all aspects of WP:EL as it is, and you need to prove it someone meets EL#12 - meaning proving it is on league with Alpha Centuari or one of the similar huge wikias. Read the actual talk page and archives of EL first though, and you will find that the removal is per consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancement of Cite.php

As you expressed an interested in the enhancement to Cite.php that I proposed, I would be grateful if you could take a look at a demonstration of the enhancement here.

If you are positive about it, I will post notice of the demonstration on the Cent discussion page. Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Izno. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Takeyasu

Hi

I have added one ref to start with on the article, but am reluctant to carry on if the article is to be deleted due to other editors not being able to find anything on him

Can you advise on how to proceed to hold ?

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See AfD. --Izno (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work This barnstar is awarded to Izno, for his valuable technical work in the project. Thank you. Ikip 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow, just realized I gave you a barnstar a couple of days ago... he he. Well, they are both well deserved! Ikip 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which really means a couple of months ago? :P --Izno (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep. ur right :) Ikip 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not necessary?

Hello,

You've just edit Paulina Rubio's page and removed my introduction? Why do you think it's unnecessary to mention that she is a Grammy, Latin Grammy nominated and Billboard music awards winner? Uvero (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see your point. Uvero (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion Of Gameplay of World of Warcraft

Why did you put back that hatnote. It is useless.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are ok with me reverting your revert? The reason it is useless is because:

the links are already provided within the article
other articles do not have hatnotes when links to the articles are already provided within the article
the scope of the article is about the gameplay, not the series or canon174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I know. I'm being so bold to simply ignore that rule.--Newbiepedian 19:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going to ignore the rule. Reasons:

Several users have gallery subpages. They waste server resources even more since the images are often much larger than this little chat icon. Also there are many, many other pages with needlessly embedded images which nobody cares about.
The image exists anyway, so whether it's in my signature or not doesn't make much difference vandalism-wise. Other images which are much used can be vandalized as well, usually without much more protection.
It's very unobtrusive, the majority of it is the same color as the background so it won't constitute a problem for people reading or scanning a page and nor does it distract from the respective message which I am posting to a talk page.
Aside from the fact that hardly anybody ever copies text from talk pages of any sort, simple text editors like MS Editor will simply ignore images and for more intricate editors like Word one can select "just text" in "paste special".
The next reason on WP:SIGN is rubbish, everybody can scale images...
Fair enough, it does clutter up the file links section of the file description, but there are a true mass of images which are embedded in user pages (especially via userboxes) which nobody complains about. Also, since it is an icon (and thus not relevant to the article side of things), not extensively many people will really care about the file links section.
Umm... ...no, it doesn't give undue prominence to my contribution, since, again, it is very unobtrusive. I actually find the Unicode symbols they suggest as a replacement for images more obtrusive than this chat icon.

Yours,

--Newbiepedian

19:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to change rules, I want to ignore them. Do we really need to discuss tedious banalities at WP:SIGN? I'm not doing any harm to you, am I, so could you please give me some peace?--Newbiepedian

20:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that, and of course some day I will do that, but right now I just have too many projects already: I am creating a Scientology Glossary while rewriting the Church of Scientology International article while planning the WikiPolice Project, while hunting vandals, while planning (locally, not publically) some additions to the WikiProject Scientology, while trying to get an overview over which topics in the areas I am more or less knowledgeable in aren't covered yet, while trying to figure out why Twinkle is buggy. I'm only here since three days. All I am asking is to give me some time to settle in...--Newbiepedian

20:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could be arranged. So, when the time arrives that I contest the rule, I could put the image back in, right?--Newbiepedian

21:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. A question: How do I actually contest a rule? Just make a new section on WPT:SIGN? Oh, and another question: Are you interested in my upcoming Wikipedia-Book about Scientology? It's a bit long, but worthwhile :)--Newbiepedian

21:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World is not Enough Article

YOu deleted some work I did on the James Bond The World is Not Enough article about the retirement of Q - a pivotal character and a landmark stage in 007 history. Before you delete things in future please have the common courtesy to place something in the discussion page of the article BEFORE deleting it.YOu are NOT a wikipedia Admin, so please be polite and follow wiki guidelines before deciding to undo someones work. The section about Q's retirement will be re-added please PLEASE do NOT delete it before discussing it first. If you do so I will report you to the wikipedia admin staff. Im not sure what you think gives you the right to destroy people's work in this way, but it makes wikipedia very unfriendly. Think before you act. Just because you dont think it is worthy doesn't mean other people find it un-needed.How dare you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.0.61 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the event this is trolling (highly likely given that the IP was blocked), "lol". In the event it's not, the information is extraneous and overly in detail, and not in good holding with what a good article is. Primarily, though, at the bottom of your edit screen, you'll see the text "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Further, the onus is on you to take it to the talk page, as you added and then I reverted. Cheers! --Izno (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_27#Wikipedia_books

Following the horribly chaos of April 7, I've resubmitted things for discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus to remove <small> tags around <ref> tags

I have started to discover where User:Miesianiacal has added <small> tags around <ref> tags. The editor doesn't seems to like this. On one article he statedlong-standing on high-traffic article; please seek consensus to remove so I added a section on Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for that purpose. You have expressed concern about this in the past an thought that your input would be beneficial there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia books

Hello Izno, you recently (and by recently, I mean the discussion died about a month ago) took part of this discussion regarding the categories of Wikipedia books, which I have now just closed. Because of the complexity of the nomination and the categories themselves, I decided to contact the substantial contributors of the discussion to review the outcome of the discussion. I have not listed these categories at WP:CFDW to be processed yet, just to on the safe side and make sure I've come to the right conclusion. After reviewing the closure, please comment here and please let me know if I my closure hit the nail on the head, or trout me if I missed anything or came to the wrong conclusion. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 08:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mono 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hadoken

I checked, and there's no concensus. So, the article was merged without concensus. That being said, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, if you want to re-merge, go ahead. I'm done here. 190.222.81.141 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just say I was done? My bad. One more thing: if you do want to merge them still, I would advice to do it in the Ryu article instead of the main SF one, and I would also suggest to merge the Shoryuken and Tatsumaki Sempukyaku articles as well. That's it. Now I'm done. 190.222.81.141 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DR. ROBOTNIK!!!!!

Look, Izno, I keep on trying to add the meme of "PINGAS" to this page. You keep on saying, "uh...Memes aren't for Wikipedia, I'm deleting this." I cannot tell you how FALSE that is. Wikipedia is here to give us reference to anything people know about and are able to write about. If you don't know about this internet joke, than that's GOOD FOR YOU. Also, THERE IS AN ENTIRE PAGE FOR RICKROLLING!!!!!! The Pingas meme might not be as big of a meme as Rickrolling, but I have seen it enough to know that it's big. It's not like I'm giving THIS one a whole page! What, do you think it's too inappropriate!?!? There are TONS of pages for everything little kids shouldn't know about. (You know what I mean; you don't have to ask what they are.) I have always tried to help Wikipedia by adding many minor edits, and ONCE AGAIN some professional-wannabe jerk thinks it's not important. If you want me to find something other than "memes" to call this section, go ahead and just ask me. Do NOT delete my hard work.

                   Signed, AutobotProwl

Response to your message

I am amazed. Simply AMAZED. YOU HAVE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "It's a bad meme?" What! I think Justin Beiber is bad, I think Ninjabread Man is bad, BUT I DO NOT DELETE THOS ARTICLES!!!!! Besides, I already told you why it should not be deleted for being a meme, and you say, "It's a meme." GUHAHUGA!!!!! WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LISTEN!!??!!?? You are being ridiculous. I noticed someone made an edit of this section that made it fit the situation better, and it was an okay edit, but THEY DID NOT DELETE IT!!!!! Izno, look! If something isn't perfect, FIX IT! DON'T DESTROY IT!!!

AutobotProwl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autobotprowl (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readability beyond MOS

I noticed that you removed the whitespace from latex (disambiguation). While it's neither prescribed nor proscribed by MOS:DAB, I did include it in my edit as I think it visually distinguishes the elements of the page (primary meaning, secondary meanings, dab template), making the information more readable. Not a big issue, but per your edit comment I thought I'd mention the purposefulness beyond what's been written into guidelines, even if subject to differing views. ENeville (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Izno. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hazard-SJ^Talk 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle.net.

Hi Inzo,

Just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm going to be reinserting a modified version of the harassment bit that you rightly took out of the Battle.net article since the sourced material was a blog. Multiple non-blog sources will be added ... but I am confused as to why you thought this related to Biography of a living person? Zuchinni one (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. For some reason one of the refs I added didn't save, I probably pasted over it without realizing it. Anyway thanks for pointing it out ... here is the link that mentions transgender harassment in relation to Blizzard's Real ID system: http://gaming.icrontic.com/article/was-blizzards-real-name-decision-nothing-more-than-a-pr-stunt/

Zuchinni one (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, obviously this is an opinion piece, but it still follows WP:RS. It could be improved however by directly attributing the bit about trans-gender harassment to the author. I didn't do that because it's not a whole quote and it would hurt the flow of the article. But feel free to change the way that its mentioned if you like, by converting it to a quote or some such.

Cheers Zuchinni one (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also here's a Daily Kos article if you like that one better you can add it as well: http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2010/7/8/882590/-.html Zuchinni one (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth it

I appreciate your after-edit earlier today, after I left 'my table' sloppy and non-CSS. So now I discovered the essence: CSS Yeah. -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per the former editor and WP:MOS. rm heading

First, the former editor said "non-standard," which is not a valid rationale. See Wikipedia:Related information/answers#Generic objections and responses. Second, where in the MOS does it prohibit a Related information heading? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a valid rationale for the area of style, I should say. That's one particular part of policy which is fairly prescriptive rather than descriptive, which concerns probably the strongest argument made in the essay ("policy is descriptive and not prescriptive"). This is especially true of FAs, which should fit the model in WP:MOS to the T... Everything else basically comes down to ILIKEIT or can be countered by similar arguments to those made in the essay itself.

Two, see WP:FOOTERS: "related information" sounds like "see also" and/or "further reading", the latter of which dictates that the items placed there are particular books, while the former is where a list of links go. Further, Related information runs into an issue which presents itself when considering that [most] navboxes do not appear in the printed version of Wikipedia (per the footnote at WP:Layout#Navigation templates). Suddenly, you have a heading with no content...

Further, it disrupts the concept that "External links" is generally the last section, which a consistency objection (which hits the catch-22 mentioned, but which then we can object to under the argument about prescriptive v. descriptive in that first paragraph).

If you want to change how the standard footings appear, be my guest, but I do not think that it is wise to do so from the ground up, with respect to style. --Izno (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Let's start with "Actually, it is a valid rationale for the area of style, I should say." My response is "I should say not." Where does that leave us? You explained your revert with a generic link to MOS. Does the MOS say somewhere "if it isn't in here then you can't do it?" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is a very strong implication pushed by a number of the people who work on the MOS (specifically the numbers/dates crew, but I suspect it would not take long to find others with the same view) that style is, and should be, a top down approach, for consistency reasons if nothing else, which is a view I similarly subscribe to. This, of course, does not leave out room for experimentation, which is what you (and apparently 1 or 2 others?) are trying to do. If it is disagreeable, however (much as the policies of certain states of the Union might be disagreeable to others), then I think that a) you are allowed to edit in such a manner, b) I am allowed to revert, and c) we need to turn to discussion. This is not a discussion to have on a per-article basis, either, in my very honest opinion. There are technical reasons not to have the header (CSS) and non-technical opinions which object to it. --Izno (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you now agree that one of the rationales you gave for removing the Related information heading ("per ... MOS") was not valid. The only support you have offered so far for the other rationale ("non-standard") is (a) "a strong implication pushed by a number of people [on the] numbers/dates crew" that style should be a top down approach and (b) you agree with that "implication." Of course, we are not talking about numbers and dates, we are talking about layout. For the record, I am one of the major contributors to wp:layout and am well aware of the benefits of consistency when a consensus has been established. (Keeping in mind that consensus can change.) However, no consensus has been established with respect to whether navboxes should have headings. And the layout crew has specifically responded to the Related information heading proposal with the suggestion that the proponents start testing the waters by adding it to articles. (That is, that the decision not be top down.) Are you now willing to agree that "non-standard" was also not a valid basis to remove the heading? (Which would then allow us to proceed to your substantive concerns.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is our conversation at an end (or have you just had more important matters to attend to)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Deathmatch

I moved HL2: DM back to its own page, because the Half-Life 2 page is unwieldly long, and the two games were not released as one, despite the fact that they share similarities. Let me know if this is a problem, I can probably find a different home for it, but I think it's a good idea that it stays off the Half-Life 2 page. --Pyroguy (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed regarding xkcd link on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)

You may recall being involved in the discussion on the talk page. I think it's clear by any measure that there is no valid argument for keeping the link in, and that it should be reverted on sight. However, I'm unable to keep the link out of the article and have already edited it out twice today. I'm suffering from silly attacks (see my talk page) and don't know how to proceed. As you're a more experienced editor who was involved in the debate I'm requesting your attention or advice on the matter. Thanks! Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CVGAIDvoter

Noting for myself. --Izno (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.ifw-kiel.de/ifw_e/organization/siebert-en/siebert/view?set_language=en

[2] ttp://www.wti.org/faculty/michael-plummer,-johns-hopkins-university-bologna-center.html

[3] ttp://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/19/science/about-education-adjoining-schools-in-italy-show-stark-contrasts.html?&pagewanted=1

[4] ttp://www.jhubc.it/HOME/advisorycouncil.cfm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]