User talk:Scix

punctuation

Largely due to my journalism training ages ago, my style choices will generally defer to the AP Styleguide where there isn't a specific wikistyle statement to the contrary.

One I has used a lot lately is the convention of putting punctuation inside quotation marks. For example:

Why did you say "butt?"

It is not always mathematically logical, but it is the current norm in academic and journalism texts -- at least as far as my last reading on the matter.

added

I have since learned that this is an American vs English puntuation variance.

AfD of Checkerboard Nightmare

Hey! Thanks for your input, I appreciate it! Rereading my comments on Jtkiefer's talk page... they do come off a bit strident, don't they? Which is not good. Glad you called me on it.

So let me step back and talk somewhere else. I'm not looking for an apology. I'm looking for discussion of why it's appropriate to discount so many votes, which I wasn't getting. My being strident was forcing him to be defensive, which was counter productive.

Specifically, mine just happens to be an example of one that I think is pretty clear cut as one that SHOULD be counted. Heck you said the same thing, why discount so many votes? If this admin thinks the policy is that he or she should only count high edit users, I think that is incorrect, it's counter the AfD admin policy. Not that they're a bad person, just that they are acting incorrectly.

I guess maybe I should dump a bunch of hours into researching this further but that's what my read of the policy says. Is it yours? This AfD went badly not because of jtkiefer, he's just the poor admin that got dragged in at the end, but rather because it's a misguided AfD and it got noticed.

So where IS the appropriate place to bring this up? on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion? ++Lar 04:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I'm a relative n00b myself. I suspect -- and this is entirely my projection -- that there is in this case an admin who was feeling overwhelmed, and needed a way to filter the content down to a manageable size, and sort of invented a way to do that that seemed to create a fairly accurate balance. I don't know what the criteria he used were, but once he was done, I think the balance of the conversation -- vote-wise, I mean -- still fairly accurately depicted the sway of the conversation. I would like to think that if there were a lot of people making idiotic and pointless posts, that these would have been filtered out first (at least mentally). Scix 05:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

"rev'd my rev -- I'd rather this move to discussion than become one of those "revert wars" I've read about."

I predict an excellent future at Wikipedia for you based solely on this edit summary! Kudos, keep up the good work! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks!! Scix 04:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

untangling which 'Fritz Klein' is which

Instead of this note on the top of the page (This article is not about SS-Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Fritz Klein or the actor best known for portraying Abraham Lincoln) I think we should set up a Fritz Klein Disambiguation page.

We could move the bisexual one to "Fritz Klein, M.D.", and put in a stubs for both 'SS-Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Fritz Klein' and "Fritz Klein (actor best known for portraying Abraham Lincoln)'.

What do you think? CyntWorkStuff 18:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Scix 19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Bisexual Foundation

Help, help. I started an entry for the Bisexual Foundation which was really needed, but I don't know that much about it. If you know more about it can you please make it better?

Thanks so much CyntWorkStuff 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. Anything or anybody you could find would be great. CyntWorkStuff 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

thanks for your attempt at help. That article is currently in the death grip of pro-circumcision POV editors who censor as much information that would discourage circumcision as possible via abusing the wikipedia rules. Lordkazan 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Magic edit

That wasn't an argument. It was vandalism. But it's cool :-) I like the new version better. Zensufi 05:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I have to go see what you're talking about; I tend to forget what editing I've done...--Scix 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird? Most probably.

No offense, but what is it with you and male things? -- WiiVolve 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... I dunno. It's one of those things where I am looking something up, and follow a link, and another, and another. And the pee-pee poo-poo wee-wee pages seem to need a lot of help. I guess. --Scix 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]