User talk:King Bee/Archive 1

2024 {{{team}}} season
2024 {{{team}}} season
	← 2023; [[{{{team}}}]]; 2025 →;

Welcome!

Hello, King Bee/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa's Wierd

Hi,

You incorrectly changed the name for the band from Carissa's Wierd to Carissa's Weird. The band intentionally spelled the name wrong.

See: http://www.amazon.com/Carissa%27s-Wierd/artist/B000APQSDI/002-2447088-7212045 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.67.152.145 (talk • contribs)

Wow. I am an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out. --King Bee 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got done moving it back. --King Bee 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin

Hi,

I noticed that you updated the infobox for Led Zeppelin. The new version listed the "Current members". Please note that Led Zeppelin split in 1980, and that one of those "current members" is, in fact, dead. I've reverted the edit accordingly. If you wish to update the box again, please do so, but all four should really be listed simply as "Members". --TheMadBaron 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be happy if they were listed as former members? They are no longer a band, yes, so perhaps former members is most appropriate. I do not think that we should leave the old style infobox in place just because John Bonham is dead. King Bee 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that we should.

I think "former members" is a bit contrived, since there is no need to distinguish between former members and any other type of members. "Members" is definitely better. Having said that, if you want to change the infobox and list "former members", I won't stand in your way. Someone might, but it won't be me. --TheMadBaron 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Well, I don't think that the current template for band infoboxes allows for just "members." Can't win 'em all, I guess. King Bee 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta

What does vivified mean? It's not in the Cambridge online dictionary?(Halbared 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It means "enlivened." It doesn't matter whether it's in the Cambridge online dictionary, because "vivified" is what V says. King Bee 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, for sure, actually I thought your changes were very good. I don't have the patience for correcting other people's grammar. I was questioning the op's original suggestion. I reread the book recently, I was not aware of a sexual question hanging over Evey and her dad, so I wondered whether it was really suggested by the book or inferred by that particular reader,(Halbared 22:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sleater-Kinney

Hello, you deleted the reference to "Punk" rock in the Sleater-Kinney entry. I realize music labels are subjective, however one punk rock website, "Punknews.org" did cover the band in the last few years. Which means nothing other than one website's opinion. In any event, I suggest, for whatever it is worth, to have the matter up for Wikki discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.64.179.67 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, but there were already something like 4 genres listed there. It was getting ridiculous, I looked at the talk page, and made a bold edit. King Bee 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for fixing my User page :) Someone at the local high school here was messing around, they probably didn't mean any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jowan2005 (talk • contribs)

It's unlikely that he didn't mean any harm, seeing as how my page was vandalized as well. I'm always willing to help out though, so don't sweat it. Thanks for the thank you. =) --King Bee 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre the Giant

Regardless of whether sometime is classes as lame or not, Andre's height was last recorded at 6 ft 10 in. That was his height, if anyone wants to change it, they'll need to reach consensus on the discussion page, if you wish to join in, that's fine(Halbared 07:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

All I mentioned was that it was one of wikipedia's lamest edit wars. I didn't come up with that, so don't shoot the messenger. King Bee 15:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's just something that I personally think should be correct, that's all. Oh and thanks for signing DolGrenns msgs on my page.(Halbared 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No problemo. =) --King Bee 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's like you're stalking me. :O Editing the Tupac page, the Andre the Giant page, and fixing my page. (I watch/edit the 'Tupac' and 'Andre the Giant' pages.) Anyway, just thought I would say 'Hi' since I saw your edit on the Tupac page. - Jowan2005

The Hourly Radio

I've removed the {{db-band}} tag and replaced it with {{inuse}}. I tagged the article because it was 1) seemingly written by a member of the band 2) released an album just yesterday and 3) had no references or sources establishing its notability. But I'll see if those can't be provided by your research. Be sure to review WP:MUSIC and WP:Reliable Sources. Cheers! -- Merope 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from lunch, hence the delay. :) The tag was for you, which is technically a misuse of the tag. (Oops.) Let me know if you need any help. -- Merope 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:HourlyRadioPhotoPrint.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HourlyRadioPhotoPrint.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Batman image

Not to harp on you (because the name is stellar), but I don't think that you can display that particular image of Batman on your user page. Check out WP:FAIR, see if I'm mistaken. --King Bee 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasted from the image's page, located on the "comiccover" tag. To illustrate: the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question; Since this is what the image does on my page, illustrates part of the topic at hand, so I don't see the problem here. I'm not claiming the artwork as my own or profiting from it, so I think it should be okay. --Oatmeal batman 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac

I will see if I can do anything about the Tupac Shakur discography page, but I don't know if I'll be able to do a lot. --Jowan2005

You could be a little bit more descriptive and actually tell me what I did wrong. I don't think you even know what your talking about, I just added in stuff without affecting tables 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brett Favre

Sorry about the accidental revert to the vandalized version - someone else reverted nanoseconds before me and I got the wrong version. Rectified straight afterwards. Malpertuis 10:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. I figured that was what had happened, but I thought I'd shoot you the message just in case. --King Bee 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Contemporary Christian music

You wrote in an edit summary: "Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and should certainly NOT contain any links to lyrics websites"

How exactly have you come to the conclusion of your second statement here? -- Smjg 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By reading the talk page at WP:EL. --King Bee 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That talks only of sites that infringe copyright, and the discussion specifically states that not all lyrics sites do. So your claim that Wikipedia should not contain any links to lyrics sites is unfounded.

And while I'm at it, are the articles in Category:Online lyrics databases in violation of policy? -- Smjg 13:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, not all lyrics sites do, but I think we should err on the side of caution. Can you prove that the links in the CCM article were not in violation of copyright? If you can't, then just leave them out. Thanks for pointing out that category for me, by the way. I've listed it at CFD. --King Bee 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Packers seasons and such

Alright, I created the 1989 Green Bay Packers season article. Yeah, I know they didn't make the playoffs, but it was the season with the instant replay game. I based the article off of the 1996 Green Bay Packers season. I'm not sure whether this is considered a "stub" or not, as it took some time to make. Do you think all the season articles should structured like this? I don't necessarily think that stubbing all of them with just their record and coach will necessarily be a good idea, because that is only as informative as the Green Bay Packers seasons article.

Second thing I'd like to ask you about would be a template for these pages to go at the top. I think a template box would be helpful and eliminate the preceding season/next season thing at the bottom of the page. I was thinking a template box roughly like;

2007 Green Bay Packers season
Record: 17-0
Coach: Brett Favre
Playoff finish: Super Bowl XLII Champions
2006 season, 2008 season

I don't know if something else should be added to that, so I'm asking for your input on something like that before I throw something together and ask the talk page if they like it.++aviper2k7++ 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no, that is definitely not a stub. You have the record, the draft picks, the story about the instant replay (I was just a kid back then!) game, etc. This is a rather fleshed out article. I like it.

Secondly, I dig your idea for a new template. That thing at the bottom is tired and old, and your idea contains more information. If you can make it look nice, I say "go for it." I'll back you up where you need it.

Lastly, as I said before, I'd like to help you out with these things as well. There are quite a few seasons there, and I don't know if I'd be able to adhere to a WP:NPOV article for the season with Ray Rhodes as head coach, so the more wikipedians we can get going on this, the better. =) Let me know if you need anything else. --King Bee 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I threw together a template. I'm not sure how to do the preceding/succeeding season thing, I'll try to do it, but if you find any examples that are similar, please notify me. Template:NFL season I included some examples on the page. If you think anything should be added, feel free to add it. I don't know how good you are at templates, I'm not the brightest at making them.++aviper2k7++ 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I might switch around the way it looks a little bit, but if/when I do, I'll respond here to let you know. I'm going to be pretty busy for the next month or so, but maybe this endeavor will give me good reasons to procrastinate. =)--King Bee 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made 1966 Green Bay Packers season (fyi). I still need to add references on the two playoff games and a summary on the regular season instead of just a schedule result table. Please check it out and add anything you feel necessary.++aviper2k7++ 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I would appreciate it if you would go away and get a life. All you are is a geek who has nothing better to do but study math and edit an encyclopedia. Switchfo0t813 6 December, 2006

I strongly suggest that you refrain from personal attacks, per WP:NPA. All of my edits have been in good faith in an effort to better Wikipedia as a whole. --King Bee 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very nice thing to say, please refrain from personal attacks++aviper2k7++ 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nullity

This is why I stated to keep in mind the magnitude of what he is trying to claim. He is no mathematician, yet dedicated mathematicians such as Newton resolved the situation as unsolvable. The girl who solved the folding problem is legitimate, however Anderson has had ample opportunity to obtain a doctorate in mathematics. In addition, this problem has been addressed hundreds of times in terms of various NaNs. Sekky 19:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Switchfo0t813

Why does this User keep on changing the Aly & AJ genre from Teen Pop to Christian Pop? Is there any way we can get this User to stop undoing our edits without using a block? This User said in their summary that they had "reverted vandalism," i.e. my changing of the genre back to Teen Pop (which Aly & AJ are!). This User changed it to Christian Pop again. I don't like being accused of vandalism like this. How can we end this edit war? User:Switchfo0t813 seems to be editing Wikipedia in favor of their religion also. Acalamari 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a history of being a bit obstinate. I feel like we can give him/her another chance, but a full-on block may be in order. This user has resorted to personal attacks more often than once, and refuses to adhere to any consensus that has been reached on a talk page; he/she just edits however he/she wants. This is very destructive to Wikipedia as a whole. I have warned this user multiple times about wiki-etiquette, but to no avail. Let's just hold off on trying to get a block right now and see if things calm down. --King Bee 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did wait for things to calm down; I even gave Switchfo0t813 praise for constructive work (something I now regret doing). It didn't work though, and this User continues to undo edits (especially ones that aren't in favor of religion). Also, when you mean a "full-on block," is that a total ban from Wikipedia permenantly, or a total ban from Wikipedia for a certain amount of time. I'm just asking because I don't want any sort of block, and I will do my best to avoid getting blocked (so I do good edits). Acalamari 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got the user blocked (at least for the time being). I was sick of the nonsense. --King Bee 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found citation

I found citation for the Aly & AJ page about recording in January.

http://blog.$$.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=21830574&blogID=189764498&MyToken=2b6f6c21-1470-4f72-9cd4-3775ff37ff6b

Thats from their official MySpace page. Switchfo0t813

$$ was myspace

Another Block?

Are you going to have to put another block on User: Switchfo0t813? I noticed several edits to the Aly & AJ page in the last couple of hours or so (I have the Aly & AJ page in my Watchlist so I can keep an eye on it). Why does this User keep doing these edits? I'm not "biased against Christianity" (though the User neglects to say that they're biased towards it), as you've said, there's no evidence of Aly & AJ being a Christian Band. One more thing; how are you able to block User: Switchfo0t813 anyway? I didn't think you were an Administrator; maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. Acalamari 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not an administrator. I reported his editing abuse (violating WP:3RR), and they gave him a 24 hour block. As soon as it expired, he returned to add his nonsense to the page. I don't know what we're going to do. I started an informal mediation over at the Mediation Cabal, and I'll let you know if they take the case. We just have to remember to try to stay cool, even though this is a perfectly ridiculous situation. --King Bee 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to correct the genre again. Switchfo0t813 just changed the genre back to "Christian Pop." Acalamari 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. He just removed a helpful message from his talk page that I left him as well. Make sure you don't get yourself into violating the 3-revert-rule, even though I am currently considering his genre edits to be vandalism. --King Bee 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get into the three-revert-rule? I'm not the one disobeying majority opinion. (I.e the majority opinion is that Aly & AJ aren't a Christian band.) I will, however, be careful. I just posted a message on Switchfo0t813's talk page. Acalamari 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish me; I took your warning, but still ended up breaking the three-revert rule. Luckily for me, I only had a three-hour block and nothing more. At least I don't have a 48 hour block. Acalamari 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes things get out of hand. It's important to keep a cool head, so at least you learned what can happen, even though you weren't trying to break any rules at all. --King Bee 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A three-hour block is nothing in comparison to what could still happen. You've brought this incident to the Mediation Cabal; but imagine if Switchfo0t813 continued the edit war; then the Arbitration Committee could step in. Also, sorry about moving the indent; I didn't realize that you were responding to Mr. ChrisGriswold. Acalamari 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation -- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification

I have opened your mediation request. Do you wish to proceed? Have you contacted any of the other parties to see if they are interested in participating in this informal mediation? Alan.ca 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to proceed, but I'm not entirely sure if it's necessary at this point. ChrisGriswold has stepped in, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to revert the changes made by Switchfo0t813 as vandalism freely without violating WP:3RR. I have not contacted Acalamari directly, but as you can see above, he will be interested. --King Bee 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry King Bee, I'll be a party in the mediation. My only concern is that Switchfo0t813 won't participate, and will just make things more difficult. Doesn't he have to participate by default anyway, though? Acalamari 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, the mediation cabal is a voluntary, informal mediation process. It is intended to assist interested participants in resolving their dispute amicably. If you are interested in participating, please state your intention and sign your name in the discussion section on the debate page. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification Keep in mind that anyone, at any point may withdraw from the mediation. Alan.ca 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed. Acalamari 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As have I, but bear in mind that Switchfo0t813 is blocked and will be for another day or so. --King Bee 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Switchfo0t813 is still blocked; and I know the mediation is voluntary. However, wouldn't it be wise to try to convince Switchfo0t813 to sign the mediation too, once he's unblocked? After all, if he's not part of it, how would he know when we come to a decision with the genre? If he doesn't know the result of the mediation, he'll just keep changing the genre to Christian Pop. Acalamari 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Alan.ca above, so that he was aware of why Switchfo0t813 might not have responded yet (just in case he didn't already know). I agree, it is wise to get him in on the mediation, which is why Alan.ca left a message on his talk page letting him know of its existence.

King Bee I noticed that above you mentioned above that Mr. ChrisGriswold stepped in. Well actually, that's because of me for a partially related case. I told him that Switchfo0t813 had placed a warning on my Talk Page accusing me of vandalizing his (Switchfo0t813's) User Page, which I didn't. Mr. ChrisGriswold removed the warning, told Switchfo0t813 not to accuse others of vandalism when they clearly haven't; and then he gave us both blocks for violating the three-revert-rule on the Aly & AJ page. Switchfo0t813's block should be over this time tomorrow. It was because of this incident that Mr. ChrisGriswold locked the Aly & AJ page. Now you know why Mr. ChrisGriswold stepped in. Acalamari 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. =) --King Bee 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switchfo0t813 is unblocked, and already he's changed the genre. I'll have to change it back. Acalamari 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see mediation page as we are waiting for you to agree that you and another user share the same view point. Alan.ca 06:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my lateness. I was out of town for about 24 hours. --King Bee 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some things to ask first: by representing our side, does that mean you do all the talking and I contribute nothing more to the mediation? I don't get thrown out of the mediation, do I? I understand you took the time to bring the subject to the Mediation Cabal, but I got blocked to the edit war prior to the mediation being accepeted, and I don't want to back out of the mediation. If I am still allowed to contribute to the mediation, it's fine by me if you wish to represent. Acalamari 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is throwing you out. Alan.ca asked who would represent our side of the mediation (it just makes things easier if there aren't 300 people talking at once). You are more than welcome to continue to have input, and I will ask for your opinion. --King Bee 12:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I thought it was something like that. I'll just be glad once this is over with. I am going to remain with the mediation until the end. Acalamari 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else also changed the grammar near the genre, and I had to tell them that we were in the middle of a mediation, and that their grammar change could go depending on what the genre will be. I was going to tell MorwenofLassarnarch about the mediation, but you beat me to it. Never mind, at least one of us told her. Anyway, where's Switchfo0t813 and Alan.ca? Just asking because nothing's happened on the mediation recently. Acalamari 03:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switchfo0t813 is around, he made an edit yesterday. I don't know why he's avoiding the subject. --King Bee 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reminded him once, and I've just reminded him again. I'll see if that does anything. I don't know about you, but I would like the Mediation to be over soon. Acalamari 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back; check the Aly & AJ Talk Page for details. Acalamari 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In those searches, I noticed that the parts about inspiration pop had nothing to do with Aly & AJ anyway. Acalamari 22:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. =) It only strengthens my stance. --King Bee 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some more Google searches; "Aly & AJ Pop" gets the most, when I typed it in, it got nearly 500,000 results. It might have changed now, but it should still get more than any other the others searches (apart from just typing in Aly & AJ). Acalamari 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found two more "Teen Pop" cites on Google that you may want to add: MSN Music and Last.fm. On the MSN one you have to look a little to see it, but the Teen Pop genre is there. Also, when I did searches for Aly & AJ genre and Aly & AJ Teen Pop, the Genre Mediation page actually showed in the the first results. Acalamari 17:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep those in mind if I need more. I was just trying to post a slew of places so that my point would be made. Thanks again. =) --King Bee 19:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; I just thought it was best to find a few more sources. Acalamari 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be obvious, but I will be unavailable on December 25th and 26th. I'm not taking a Wikibreak; I just won't be available for the Mediation. I'll let Alan.ca know this. Acalamari 18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Switchfo0t813 hasn't shown his face on wikipedia in a few days now. I don't know what's going on. --King Bee 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back; I'll see if I can get Switchfo0t813 to participate again. Acalamari 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he will. He's back as well, he switched the genre on the Aly & AJ page again today, but refused to return to the discussion. --King Bee ^{talk contribs} 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it; he accused you of vandalism. I will try to get him to participate again; I've done it at least once before, so I'll try again. Acalamari 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan.ca was also blocked for a different dispute; he won't be back for a day or so. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know; I've been reading up about it. I'm not sure if he'll get unblocked at all; I not sure exactly what's going on with Alan.ca's block. Acalamari 18:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'll get unblocked. You just have to look at at the block log to see when it will expire. It will be a day or so from now. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the block log; Alan.ca seems to have got a ton of blocks in the last few days. I didn't expect to return to Wikipedia after two days and find out that our Mediator got blocked. Acalamari 19:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as many as you think. The amount of time he was blocked kept getting switched; so they would unblock him to reblock him, to set the time to be less or more, depending on the situation. So really, it was 2 blocks, not a lot. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My notice to Aviper2k7 was not a threat (I hate threats; I've been threatened at least twice on Wikipedia); it was just an alert. I made sure that my message wasn't like Switchfo0t813's message. Acalamari 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was. What are you talking about? –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misunderstanding. I thought you were going to ask me about my message after you'd asked Switchfo0t813 about his so I thought I'd tell you about it before you said anything. Sorry. Acalamari 22:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should see this message. Acalamari 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good news: the Mediation is finally over. The genre is Teen Pop, and we don't have to worry about it anymore. Acalamari 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0⁰

One the one hand, you are right that this is an indeterminate form in that if you pick any positive number c, you can find functions f and g such that f(x) and g(x) both approach 0 as x approaches some number a and f(x)^g(x) approaches c. (But if f and g are both analytic, then if I'm not mistaken, the limit must be 1.

But in a power series, such as

e^{x}=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }{x^{n} \over n!},

the first term of the series is 0⁰ when x = 0, and that must be equal to 1 if the identity is to be true, since e⁰, the left side of the identity, is 1.

Also, there are lots of combinatorial identities that continue to hold in certain special cases only if 0⁰ = 1. Michael Hardy 23:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of such identities I am aware, it's just that I'm wary of the way some people talk about this. I'd hate for one of my calculus students to be browsing wikipedia one day, see that 0⁰ is supposed to be 1, then get "weird," the way students do. So, to just say "yeah, 0⁰ is 1" is just dangerous.--King Bee 15:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of Brett Favre stats

I removed your citations. While they prove that Favre did do the thing in question, they do not verify that he did it the most times. Hence, they do not reference the stat in question.

Good point, and, point taken. That thought had crept into the back of my head a few minutes after I finished, but as you say, if you know of sources that prove the 'mosts' here, I'm sure they're gladly accepted. Thanks for the help. Skybunny 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm scouring the ol' Intarweb in search of leaderboards for these various things. Thanks for keeping a cool head whilst editing. The Favre page is a headache to get involved in, but I'm glad you're on board. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Starwars1955

My pleasure to report him. Wikipedia can do without people who make continuous personal attacks. I hope we get a successful block. Cheers! Yuser31415 01:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tell users that they will be blocked for blanking their own talk pages, as you did to User:Starwars1955 [1]. This is not a Wikipedia policy; in most instances, users may delete messages from their own talk pages, as deletion is considered an acknowledgement that the messages (including warnings) have been read. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in severe cases, Mr. Darcy, it shows that the user is removing the warning because they disregard it, and so they receive the same level of warning next time they vandalize because the user warning them has no previous warning indication. Yuser31415 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering users have been blocked in the past for repeatedly blanking their own talk page, I did not know I had done anything wrong. Furthermore, this user has a history of being an obstinate, repeat offender who ignores most of the warnings and comments on his talk page. Lastly, since I always let the user know that he/she may archive his/her page without disrupting anything on wikipedia, I don't see why deletion of a warning ever need occur. Taken from WP:TALK:

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

So again, if you can be more specific as to why I shouldn't be telling users politely to not blank their own talk pages, then warning them after my comments are blatantly ignored, please let me know. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrDarcy, users are persuaded to archive their talk pages rather than deleting them. WP:TALK even tells not to delete messages. If these comments on his page are read, they certainly are not responded toward. How can you have a discussion with someone that deletes your message and never responds? How can someone respond to another when they delete the entire page? If you left a message on my talk page expecting a response and I deleted it right away, wouldn't you tell me not to delete your message?++aviper2k7++ 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK is a help page, not a policy or even a guideline, and a recent ArbCom decision ruled that users may delete messages from their own talk pages, saying that deletion is an acknowledgement that the note was received and is presumed to have been read. Users are encouraged to archive messages but are NOT required to do so. These are the rules, folks, and I don't want to see Starwars1955 harassed with bogus warnings again. (He's earning his blocks well enough on his own, anyway.)

King Bee, you asked the following question: I still don't understand why you consider a 1 month block of this user "outrageous." It's simple: We don't go from 72-hour blocks to one-month blocks except in cases of extreme disruption, which is not what we have here. Blocks for repeat offenders go up in increments, not in giant leaps. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me that you're saying I can brazenly ignore WP:TALK from now on, without incurring any ire from the community, as it's only a "help page". Somehow, that doesn't seem right. If I were to be blocked, and an administrator left a block notice on my page, could I just delete it if I wanted to, because I would have acknowledged the block?

I feel as though we do have a case of extreme disruption, but maybe you just haven't had a chance to compile all the facts to come to that decision yourself. We've been trying to protect the Brett Favre page from this user and his various IP addresses since a couple of weeks ago. We've gotten some blocks in the process, but they always expire and leave us having to deal with him instantly upon his return. He usually goes straight to the Favre page and removes citations, because he ignored the warnings we left on his talk page to read up on WP:CITE. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user removing a block notification would be futile, since the block would still stand and would be forever visible in the user's block log. Anyway, I reviewed all of this user's contribs, before and since the 72h block, before I posted my first reply to Yuser31415 on AN/I, and I have to say that you are all massively overstating the case here. Starwars1955 has edited just one article in the mainspace, and one-third of his total edits are to his own talk page. On a 1-10 scale of Wikipedia disruptions, this is a two. He's frustrating, but his infractions have all been minor, and we just don't hand out one-month or indef blocks to users just for being pains in the ass unless it goes on for quite a long time. (That said, if he starts avoiding the current block by editing anonymously, or by creating a new username, let me know, as that's a much more serious infraction.) The appropriate way to handle this, now that he has been warned and blocked for various issues, is to notify an admin if any of those issues recurs, providing diffs when possible, and then to accept that the admin who takes up the case may not take the precise action you want. If he does show up under a new username or via an IP address, as I said, let me know, and I will block him or semi-protect Brett Favre as appropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the perspective. You'll be the first to know if he disrupts the Brett Favre page again. Thank you for calmly laying out the issue for me. I shall make an attempt to be more civil in the future. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Photos

That's the only good one that I got of him from the front while I was at the one game, unfortunately. I'll take a look at the rest of them in a few days (on my way down to Florida for a college bowl game early tomorrow morning) and will upload any that might be helpful. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bulletpoint problem

Oh, bother. Again. It's a problem with my normal web browser's compatability with foreign characters (it doesn't support Unicode). I'm sorry about that. I tend to use it unless I know there are unsupported chars, when I use Konqueror instead. My apologies, and hope it hasn't messed the article up too much. :(

Anyway, I'm off to bed now and I'll get back in the morning. If you can do something with Starwars1955's ANI, great. I think he's heading for a block but I can't be sure.

Cheers! Yuser31415 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Dillo much better too

. Konqueror's ... awful, but it does the job. The other option I have is a graphical version of Links or Seamonkey. *sigh* Anyway, goodnight. *yawn*

Zzzzzzzzz. Yuser31415 06:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Manning

Were you referring to any particular item or items when you said that the article needed sources? Dlong 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stats, essentially. Birthplace, birthdate, things like this. Whenever there's a page with a bunch of trivia-style facts (especially football stats), it should be source-central. If you want an idea of what I mean, take a look at the Brett Favre page. We're in the process right now of citing any challengeable thing on there, and statistics certainly fit that bill. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch

Deleted his userpage and left him a simple warning. The nasty comments about his friend/classmate were totally out of line. Thanks! | Mr. Darcy talk 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - that's another good catch. Not sure what that user was up to; he deleted my note (claiming he was "archiving," but he didn't archive it). Keep up the good work! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question

Why aren't user talk articles listed as stumps —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.15.249 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

I have been registered with Wikipedia for less than three months, yet already, I have been involved in a lot more things than I originally thought I would do. I have encountered edit wars, been involved in a Mediation (which you already know), broken the three-revert rule (I'm not proud of that, honest), been vandalized, threatened three times, am currently helping MrDarcy and KP Botany with a load of new Users who are all possibly one User and are all editing very similar pages, and another User thinks I'm Paris Hilton (seriously!). Is it typical for a User to encounter this much activity within their first three months, or have I simply been more active than most Users who have been around for that amount of time? Acalamari 18:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be sure, but you're probably just more active in the community (which is good) and hence far more visible to the vandals and weirdos at large. Just keep your nose clean, keep working hard, and these things will take care of themselves. =) –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. As for the User thinking I'm Paris Hilton, I was actually thinking that people would likely think I was a squid or a squid lover (as my Username is "Acalamari"), instead of believing than I'm Paris Hilton. Heh. Acalamari 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars1955

Yeah, that was pretty obvious. Some vandals are not too bright. Keep me posted - if the case isn't as clearcut, though, let's set up a checkuser request next time. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section.

I see you've also removed the controversy section from the Alyson Michalka, Amanda Michalka and Aly & AJ articles. I said in my edit summaries for the User to discuss them on the Talk Pages. I'll leave a note on their Talk Page if you haven't done so already. Acalamari 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was removing them since I saw you doing it, and because I thought the sections were somewhat weird. We'll see what happens though, I don't want to get dragged into an edit war over the Michalkas again. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing it on the talk page right now. However, I'm not sure how much I'll be able to discuss it though; I'm wrapped up in a much bigger issue. Acalamari 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]